skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

How do you look at aspects?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 518
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 6:11 pm    Post subject: How do you look at aspects? Reply with quote

Hi Skyscript members,

In astrology, there are many ideas - old and new - about aspects. This thread is for exploring various theories.

To kick off the discussion, let me present my own preferred view. It is only including the aspects of the 30° division, thus paralleling the zodiac. And once again, it's based on Ptolemy's domicile scheme.

Ptolemy thinks of the Sun in Leo and the Moon in Cancer respectively as casting rays on the planets: Mars is tricky because in his two domiciles Scorpio and Aries, he receives squares from the Sun and the Moon; Jupiter is benevolent because he receives the Luminaries' trines, etc.

I think this actually also works the other way around - in astrology, there is no cause and effect, anyway, only correspondence. So you can just as well say that a particular aspect has its character because of the planet linked to it in this scheme.

However, in the domicile scheme, there is one classical "aspect" not included: the conjunction. What we have instead are two celestial bodies 30° from one another (the Sun and the Moon), each casting aspects only to one side, into their respective hemispheres of the zodiac. Whereas looking at a planet, we are dealing with a singular body projecting its rays both forward and backward on the zodiac simultaneously. So what I propose for our purposes here is to set the Sun and the Moon in conjunction with each other. Paralleling this, any planet can be diurnal as well nocturnal.

Therefore, the conjunction is of a Soli-Lunar nature, the semi-sextile is Mercurial, the sextile is Venusian, the square Martian, the trine Jovian, the opposition Saturnine. I think this describes the particular character of each of these aspects quite well!

Note that since we have blended the Luminaries with each other, we have created a gap on either side, as far as assignable planets are concerned. Maybe this is yet another rationale why the quincunx isn't considered an aspect, traditionally speaking.

This is not to say that the quincunx is not significant - I know from personal experience that it is. The same applies to other "minor aspects" introduced by Kepler. Althoug to include them in such a scheme would require a circle divided differently (much like there are other ways to divide the zodiac, too, leading to the decans, horas etc.).

You are welcome to share your thoughts on this often neglected topic!

Best regards
Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3302
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

this will be a philosophical answer to what could be taken as a more general question. thanks for raising the issue michael!

i am reminded of the early church leaders who opted to leave out certain gospels as they thought they weren't in line with what they wanted to include in "the bible".. i think a similar dynamic has unfolded with "the gospel of astrology" over the centuries whereby certain ideas have been incorporated, while others have been shunned. i don't believe it has to do with the validity of viewing astrology in an innovative way, which is what will always be a part of the human spirit, so much as a desire to include or exclude certain ideas that some or many may find challenging.

here is partly what am i getting at..

sacred geometry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_geometry
phthagoras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras
iamblichus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iamblichus
kepler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler
john addey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Addey_%28astrologer%29


the many mysteries involved with numbers is an important layer to this. i believe some of these philosophical ideas may have been held in secrecy and not shared to the uninitiated over the course of time.

i have often thought of astrology as being described via the elements, which may be based more on philosophy then hard and fast astrology. here is one way i think of astro symbolism utilizing the elements -
planets - fire
houses - earth
aspects - air
signs - water

it seems that what is most difficult to understand astrologically is what is most ethereal.

i think aspects are directly connected to the meaning of numbers.. i believe they function regardless of the way these other elements of astrology function. this is an area very ripe for exploration too, which i believe astrologers like alfred witte, ebertin reinhold and more recently john addey and david hamblin have worked towards incorporating. it is an ongoing work that can develop in many ways, but not without the involvement of astrologers who are interested in this particular branch of study...

what are we doing when we study astrology? we are attempting to seek wisdom and understanding. limiting ourselves to a particular dogma seems short sighted, but i understand the need to have a system in place for beginners and those new to astrology too. astrology has many mysteries yet to be unlocked which will eventually be unlocked by those willing to go beyond any limitations imposed on them from outside.. the limitations a person places on their own understanding is a different issue and will only be removed when the same person recognize how they are limiting their own understanding.

let me give one example, as i am running out of time and need to get ready to go play some music tonight.
108
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/108_%28number%29

dusty bunker wrote a book called Quintiles and Tredeciles: The Geometry of the Goddess
http://dustybunker.blogspot.ca/2009/12/quintiles-and-tredeciles-geometry-of.html

she made a study of people who had a 108 degree aspect in their chart and it was quite interesting. you can see this aspect in a 5th harmonic chart which shows as an opposition in a 5th harmonic chart.. 360 divided by 10=36.. 72 is 2x36.. 108 is 3 x 36.. etc. etc.. these are 5th harmonic types of aspects.

how many are even curious to study such a thing?

why is their such a fascination for the navamsha chart in indian astrology? what is the history behind that? 360 divided by 9= 40.. who uses a 40 degree aspect -called the novile? not many western astrologers as i understand it.. the navamsha is very same chart as a 9th harmonic chart, if you are into examining harmonic charts as david hamblin was in his couple of ground breaking books, the most latest called 'the spirit of numbers'.

astrologers are no different then any other activity that involves people.. some will be interested in ideas that others will shun. at some point there needs to be a concerted effort with the use of computers and curious people to discover the many mysteries that are waiting to be discovered thru a closer examination of aspects..

as to the question of where the names of various astrological patterns originated, i suspect it is fairly recent.. the finger of god, mystic rectangle, thors hammer and etc. etc. - are all different aspect patterns that go beyond the standard use of the numbers 3, or 4 as represented by the grand trine or grand square.. they go back to the essence of numbers.

last comment which is a bit out in left field, but might be something someone would like to take up.

i was thinking about how the use of greek and arabic lots are mathematic equations that involve distance ratios. a triangle will form between the ascendant with the lot of spirit and the lot of fortune - no one has come up with a name for it yet! in fact the distance between the los and lof is the basis for the lot of eros or lot of basis.. these are triangular patterns that have some special relevance to the particular chart.. any planet that passes over one of these lots reflects the distance relationship between the sun and moon extended off the ascendant. in a chart where the distance between the sun and moon is an actual aspect - the lot of basis is also an aspect that is extended off the ascendant as well and which is the missing 3rd side of the pattern.. i have been thinking about this lately.. it is a different way to think of these lots - unorthodox for sure!

bottom line is this - we are in a search for wisdom. the mandala of the astro chart is only limited by our own imagination.. imagination is a powerful part of our creative process which can open up mysteries that will remain locked for those who are unwilling to consider ideas outside their comfort zone..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3302
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

one question mark surrounding aspects, is the question of orbs.. the modern focus on orbs seems more clear cut in the traditional texts..i don't know if this is completely true, but it is my impression. modern astrology has been in a state of confusion over orbs without a standardized way to answer it.. if you like standardized - the traditional system towards the issue of orbs has an obvious appeal..

for me though, if i see a triangular pattern (many of these fancy named modern patterns like finger of god and etc. fall into this category), i am always thinking midpoints.. how close is the planet on the point away from the midpoint of the 2 planets on the bottom? i think this is one of the reasons these patterns are especially interesting as they often highlight important midpoint patterns to a chart. the obvious one - tsquare - which involves 2 planets in opposition with a 3rd (or more) planet squaring onto the opposition becomes a focal point for the release and working out of the energy caught in the opposition. now whether this has anything to do with the modern named pattern or becuase of the midpoint picture that it often describes is a debatable point, i suppose..

i see these same types of triangular patterns being drawn up with the use of the arabic or greek lots... the ascendant axis is the midpoint to the part of fortune and part of spirit, so it is essentially bringing the 3 most important considerations in a chart - according to some (sun, moon, ascendant), along with the issue of sect, and creating a midpoint picture with the use of them. any planet on either point enters into the midpoint picture emphasizing these same points.

as i understand it, this isn't the way astrologers familiar with traditional astrology using these parts think of these tools, but i would be very surprised if the astrologers from the past weren't intimately aware of this.. i would suspect the idea of midpoints would be understood, even if they didn't give it a name.. they are mathematical equations extending distances off the ascendant or other points and creating these types of triangular patterns... an obvious byproduct of any triangular pattern is a midpoint and planet/point on the focal point of it which is often strengthened.

i think the naming of these triangular patterns may sound frivolous, but i think they have a solid basis in useful astro technique and go back into the question michael asks about how one uses aspects, or even marks general question about the origins of the naming of these different patterns.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3302
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2014 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

here is a quote regarding placidus use of certain aspects.. it is interesting how some astrologers are strong supporters of his house system or his manner of doing primary directions, but don't necessarily abide by his concept on aspects.. he appears to have been directly influenced by kepler in this decision to incorporate these aspects.

note 3 to link below - "Placido followed Ptolemy in his use of the conjunction, sextile, square, trine and opposition aspects. To these he added the parallel, which he considered an aspect in its own right, and the 'new' aspects of 72° (quintile), 135° (Sesquiquadrate) and 144° (bi-quintile). A later thesis by Kepler included 30° (semi-sextile) and 45° (semi-square) but Placido specifically rejected them. The eight geometric aspects he used are related to ratios found in prominent musical resonances. It has recently come to light that Placido also composed music."

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/placido.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 518
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let me ask you guys: How is the trine different from the sextile? The opposition from the square? The semisextile from the quincunx?

Please share your observations and thoughts!

Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eric L



Joined: 23 Feb 2014
Posts: 36
Location: New York

Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, the model I'm toying with in my head, a sort of neotraditional synthesis, is that the broad category we call "aspects" has two distinct components - sign relations and degree relations. The former is basically the traditional aspect doctrine and has to do with whether the planets can "see" each other from their signs and whether the relations are harmonious or inharmonious. Nothing radically different than what you'd find in Ptolemy, Dorotheus or Valens.

My conception of the second element is more complex and, frankly, still a bit rough. Basically I think having a certain mathematical degree relationship makes planets interact with each other. This doesn't necessarily mean the planets "behold" each other - in fact, my theory as to why tight Quincunxes can be rather nasty is because they don't - we've got two planets interacting blindly*. This to me explains why the most potent effects are the close "classical" aspects - they have the beholding relationship and the corresponding degree-based harmonic relationship. A double whammy, as they say. As for the harmonics which aren't factors of twelve, they have their own essential quality, but I would hypothesize that the sign relationships of the planets involved might make them easier or more difficult. Same for the old issue of out-of-sign aspects where the harmonic and sign relationships don't match.

My model's definitely a bit unorthodox; at the moment it's sort of a thought experiment that needs some application, but I think it may have a use in reconciling traditional vs. modern aspect doctrine.

*I know there's certain signs where aversion is mitigated, but that's a different matter and I've yet to see observationally whether it makes a major difference with the tight 150 degree aspect. Always more to learn.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3302
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nice post eric. thanks..

i think of the different phases of a cycle as being represented by the 360 circle. some are more conflictual and some are more harmonious. this is captured in ptolemys doctrine on whether signs see one another, but it seems too boxed in for me with the emphasis on 12 boxes or signs. these sharp edges as the basis for whether a planet does or doesn't make an aspect with another planet seems stiff.. i guess that's why i like the idea of aspects that aren't held up by hierarchy of the signs or the division of 12 concept..

i like to think of planets in relation to other planets in a cyclic relationship and just where they are in this cyclic relationship.. at present we have saturn and uranus in a 150 degree relationship to one another. but more then this we have saturn in an 8th house type of phase to uranus which gives it a bit more detail..systems and structures are breaking down in order to precipitate new approaches. that is sort of how i see this waning 150 between saturn and uranus.

the 150 - quincunx or inconjunct aspect/non aspect has an association with the 6th and 8th house/sign concept for me, which is one of struggle based on the 360 cycle.. one is reaching towards the opposition - not able to merge fully with the unknown(waxing inconjunct), while the other is in the process of disintegration and not completely able to let go(waning inconjunct).. maybe that is too abstract for people, but it is how i see planets in any sort of 150 interacting with each other. the concept of not seeing one another sort of fits, but no one ever tries to explain just what that means in real terms! someone is knocking but the other one doesn't hear it maybe! i think this is also why this aspect has an association with illness and health.

michael - i think the trine is more dynamic then the sextile.. it covers a wider spectrum and has more reach and more synergy to express.. i am a big fan of pushing the elements onto the division of 12. i think this elemental synergy is the cause for happiness, and also perhaps a lack of conflict which might have some downside in that a person is less motivated.. usually it is offset by other factors in the chart. it is nice to have a mix of easy and hard aspects and yes - i do think of these aspects in these simplistic terms as i think it is an honest way to view them for me anyway.. so, trine is stronger and more beneficial then the sextile for all these reasons.. 120 waxing is ease of expression and joyous.. 120 waning is expansive and philosophical having taken 2/3rd of the cyclic journey, but not the whole journey!! can't remember the other part of your question..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 518
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you, Eric, for your interesting post.

As far as planets "seeing each other" are concerned, this webpage provides a table showing all the relationships between signs in form of an aspect grid:

http://www.auxmaillesgodefroy.com/beholding

Note that signs that do not behold each other by being of common gender or quality can nevertheless be related with each other by being:

    Antiscia - which funnily are also known as signs beholding each other*

    Contrantiscia


*Nicholas deVore: Encyclopedia of Astrology, "Beholding signs":
Quote:
Those which have the same declination; i.e., at equal distances from the Tropics; as Aries and Virgo, Taurus and Leo, Gemini and Cancer, Libra and Pisces, Scorpio and Aquarius, Sagittarius and Capricorn. Because such pairs of Signs were either both Northern, or both Southern, they were by Ptolemy deemed to be "of equal power." This consideration, however, applied only when two such Signs were joined by a body in each, mutually configurated.


To illustrate, Lilly says on page 92 of Christian Astrology that the antiscia of the benefactors are equal to a sextile or trine, and the contrantiscia are of the nature of a square or opposition.

So much for this.

However, to further complicate matters, another rationalization for the semi-sextile and the quincunx not fulfilling the requirements for aspects seems to be that of signs with "poor visual contact" which makes (a little) more sense regarding the semi-sextile than the quincunx.

Eric, I think most modern astrologers and many traditional astrologers would consider an aspect strongest if it is both platick and partile. Frankly, I don't see right now what would be definitely unorthodox in your approach. Perhaps you would like to elaborate on this?

Quote:
As for the harmonics which aren't factors of twelve, they have their own essential quality, but I would hypothesize that the sign relationships of the planets involved might make them easier or more difficult. Same for the old issue of out-of-sign aspects where the harmonic and sign relationships don't match.


Again, it is standard lore that the challenge an aspect poses is modified by the nature of the planets involved.

Further highly recommended reading on aspects:

http://www.auxmaillesgodefroy.com/planetary_aspects

http://magnumopusastrology.com/the-aspects-in-classical-and-traditional-astrology#_ftnref

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspects.html
The latter is Deb's brilliant treatise "The Classical Origin & Traditional Use of Aspects."


Last edited by Michael Sternbach on Wed Jul 30, 2014 1:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 518
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

James wrote:
Quote:
i think of the different phases of a cycle as being represented by the 360 circle. some are more conflictual and some are more harmonious. this is captured in ptolemys doctrine on whether signs see one another, but it seems too boxed in for me with the emphasis on 12 boxes or signs. these sharp edges as the basis for whether a planet does or doesn't make an aspect with another planet seems stiff.. i guess that's why i like the idea of aspects that aren't held up by hierarchy of the signs or the division of 12 concept..


Well, James, I know you like to think out of the box!

I certainly agree with you that some milestones on the circle are potentially symbolical of a more conflictual, others of a more harmonious relationship between two forces. I do believe that even a conflictual planetary relationship has a lesson and a higher potential inherent to it; fully accessing the latter may presuppose a difficult learning process, to be sure, so that, eventually, the divergent parts of the personality (or whatever is in question) mutually learn to understand and reconcile their positions.

As for the twelve-fold division of the circle, I maintain that there are good reasons why this is so prevalent in astrology - which have to do with the nature of numbers and geometrical figures. That said, it doesn't imply that other numerical divisions cannot yield meaningful results (much like there are other division of the zodiac in use), not least because an aspect's significance is determined by the number associated with it. But even you are giving more weight to the classical than to the minor aspects in your delineations, as far as I know.

Quote:
i like to think of planets in relation to other planets in a cyclic relationship and just where they are in this cyclic relationship.. at present we have saturn and uranus in a 150 degree relationship to one another. but more then this we have saturn in an 8th house type of phase to uranus which gives it a bit more detail..systems and structures are breaking down in order to precipitate new approaches. that is sort of how i see this waning 150 between saturn and uranus.

the 150 - quincunx or inconjunct aspect/non aspect has an association with the 6th and 8th house/sign concept for me, which is one of struggle based on the 360 cycle.. one is reaching towards the opposition - not able to merge fully with the unknown(waxing inconjunct), while the other is in the process of disintegration and not completely able to let go(waning inconjunct)..


James, do you see what I mean? This scheme emphasizes the twelve-fold division, too! I have learned of traditional astrology's concept the houses would at least partially derive their nature from the aspects they are forming with the ASC. You are giving this an interesting twist now... It's the other way around, the nature of the aspects can be deduced from the houses! Shocked Well, I grant you that this further unites the different levels of the chart (if nothing else) - especially if we define house cusps as aspects to the ASC in the Equal or, perhaps better yet, in the Raman-Vehlow system.

I found it interesting to read about a view related to yours in Hellenistic astrology, which refers to the planet on the right of an aspect as “overcoming” the planets on the left. From Deb's article on aspects (linked in my preceding post):

Quote:
In line with this, the 9th, 10th and 11th house from any planet was thought to have the strongest influence over it - especially the 10th house, which dominated the planet in the same way that the Midheaven dominates the Ascendant.


But let's get back to your post.

Quote:
maybe that is too abstract for people, but it is how i see planets in any sort of 150 interacting with each other. the concept of not seeing one another sort of fits, but no one ever tries to explain just what that means in real terms!


The concept of signs beholding each other, the way it's commonly used, leaves me with questions, too, some of which I have addressed in my previous post.

Quote:
someone is knocking but the other one doesn't hear it maybe! i think this is also why this aspect has an association with illness and health.


That's an interesting idea about the quincunx! I also observe that it often plays a key role in medical analysis of charts.

Quote:
michael - i think the trine is more dynamic then the sextile.. it covers a wider spectrum and has more reach and more synergy to express.. i am a big fan of pushing the elements onto the division of 12. i think this elemental synergy is the cause for happiness, and also perhaps a lack of conflict which might have some downside in that a person is less motivated.. usually it is offset by other factors in the chart. it is nice to have a mix of easy and hard aspects and yes - i do think of these aspects in these simplistic terms as i think it is an honest way to view them for me anyway.. so, trine is stronger and more beneficial then the sextile for all these reasons.. 120 waxing is ease of expression and joyous.. 120 waning is expansive and philosophical having taken 2/3rd of the cyclic journey, but not the whole journey!!


Thanks, James. This makes a lot of sense to me. Comments to follow once you have answered the other part of my question.

Quote:
can't remember the other part of your question..


No problem, James... I don't mind to repeat myself on request. Laughing

Quote:
Let me ask you guys: How is the trine different from the sextile? The opposition from the square? The semisextile from the quincunx?


Cheers,
Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3302
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael Sternbach wrote:
But even you are giving more weight to the classical than to the minor aspects in your delineations, as far as I know.
Michael


that is true. it might have something to do with the relative weight of numbers.. 1,2,3,4 being more primary then 5,6,7,8 for example...

Michael Sternbach wrote:

James, do you see what I mean? This scheme emphasizes the twelve-fold division, too! I have learned of traditional astrology's concept the houses would at least partially derive their nature from the aspects they are forming with the ASC. You are giving this an interesting twist now... It's the other way around, the nature of the aspects can be deduced from the houses!

I found it interesting to read about a view related to yours in Hellenistic astrology, which refers to the planet on the right of an aspect as “overcoming” the planets on the left. Michael


when speaking with astrologers it is like playing blues changes to a musician.. you recognize them right away.. it doesn't mean they are the only changes (12 fold division is the analogy here) but that it is something that every astrologer immediately recognizes..

the twist i give it is based on the emphasis of the circle or cycle as not something that always has to be divvy-ed up by 12... why not think of it as a cycle, as opposed to a cycle always divvy-ed up by 12? i just go with recognizable shorthand for astrologers! a 'dumbing down' if you will!

the overcoming concept seems to immediately connect with this cycle too as planets in the 10th or 10th area are culminating over the 1st and hold a position of authority.. this is basic astrology symbolism as i understand it.. there will always be these aspectual relationships between planets, even if astrologers opt to put much greater or undue emphasis on signs.. this really goes into something i have noticed for a long time.. astrologers will typically emphasize something, while de-emphasizing something else.. signs are often given more weight then aspects.. this might be due the fact that astrologers are not seeing how aspects reflect this cyclic pattern that shows up in everything too and which is so much of the basis for astrology.. know i am turning this into a philosophy post!

Michael Sternbach wrote:

Let me ask you guys: How is the trine different from the sextile? The opposition from the square? The semisextile from the quincunx?
Michael


opposition -number 2.
square - 4
semisextile -12
quincunx -12..

2 is more primary then 4.. they are both more primary then 12 which is a composite of 3x4, or 3x2x2..

oppositions need interaction with others to work out the dynamics of the opposition.. in charts that are clustered in a 120 bundle ( these are marc edmund jones ideas), especially eastern hemisphere emphasis - like gwbush, it seems their is no need integrating the value of another persons views in contrast to one's own.. it is much more self contained like the number 1 - going with my number emphasis in this post. oppositions demand relationship which is often conflictual as it requires integrating something different and outside your comfort zone..

squares are conflictual too, but the conflict may or may not get worked out in the company of others. i think they are motivating aspects, but more self contained.. i am not sure if i view one as more stressful then the other, but i think an opposition is ultimately more beneficial then a square if the planets can be harmonized with one another.. these are my subjective views here.. i don't know if anyone said this in a book!

difference between the 30 and the 150? i think the 150 is much more stressful.. perhaps a 30 is capable of creating more stress too for lack of tension that is implied in 2 planets in this relationship.. it is always fun to fall back on the idea of signs that can or can't ''see'' one another here to explain why it is stressful, but i am more thinking like a window open fully almost ( 150) verses a window that is only very slightly open - 30.. if you think of aspects like a part of a cycle, as opposed to some dot on a page, or whatever, i think you will get how i see it for the most part..

i can see how an astrologer would be more tempted to use these aspects in primary directions, or solar arc directions as some planets are never going to make it into some of the more classical aspect positions over the course of a persons life.. if one thinks of planets like colours on a palette - what happens when 2 different colours collide? i think this is yet another way to think of how planets in these aspect relationships might interact with one another.. i would put the 30 and 150 down the list in terms of importance, unless they were very close and there was an absence of other stressful aspects in a chart.. every chart is unique..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
muchacho



Joined: 11 Jul 2014
Posts: 15

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 6:39 am    Post subject: Re: How do you look at aspects? Reply with quote

I use zodiac signs. So the aspect issue doesn't actually arise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3302
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

muchacho - you make it sound easy, lol.. what do you do with 2 or more zodiacs? lol!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
muchacho



Joined: 11 Jul 2014
Posts: 15

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

James,

Haha, I meant whole sign houses, of course.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1519

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 4:57 pm    Post subject: Re: How do you look at aspects? Reply with quote

Michael Sternbach wrote:

However, in the domicile scheme, there is one classical "aspect" not included: the conjunction. What we have instead are two celestial bodies 30° from one another (the Sun and the Moon), each casting aspects only to one side, into their respective hemispheres of the zodiac. Whereas looking at a planet, we are dealing with a singular body projecting its rays both forward and backward on the zodiac simultaneously. So what I propose for our purposes here is to set the Sun and the Moon in conjunction with each other.


Can you explain why you felt the need to do this - what is the goal? Was there a dilemma/problem/use case etc. that was not already catered for that the only alternative was to adjust this rulership scheme? It may help me better understand what you're hoping to achieve here.
For example I'm still fully opaque on what the reasons were for joining the sun and moon even though I read and re-read your post. Why are we doing this for in the first place? I'm not sure what problem existed that, when we join the sun and moon as though they were conjunct, is then solved.

I wonder if the idea of planets casting rays backwards and forwards is red herring here. I personally find it easier to think of planets applying to planets and casting aspects that way (separating this idea from the idea of the phase of a planet in relation to another, ie, whether sinister or dexter). I'm not sure how the concept of hurling rays may fit into that though as it may contradict my simple approach here.

Either way I'm not sure why we would set the luminaries in conjunction with another at all. The conjunction wasn't really an aspect at all - they're in the same place.

Quote:
Paralleling this, any planet can be diurnal as well nocturnal.


What have we added to make it so that any planet can be diurnal/nocturnal? Can you explain what you mean by that? Do you mean it in relation to sect? Or each planet having a nocturnal/diurnal sign? If the latter, then really what you mean to say isn't so much that any planet can be diurnal or nocturnal but instead that the terms nocturnal/diurnal become meaningless.

Quote:
Therefore, the conjunction is of a Soli-Lunar nature, the semi-sextile is Mercurial, the sextile is Venusian, the square Martian, the trine Jovian, the opposition Saturnine. I think this describes the particular character of each of these aspects quite well!


Well obviously the only thing we've added here is Mercury being the semi-sextile - but I'm not sure why we need to conjoin the Sun and Moon for that to happen. Nor why we think the semi-sextile is of the nature of Mercury.
Even without forcing a conjunction upon the luminaries, Mercury will still be semi-sextile its luminary.

Quote:
Note that since we have blended the Luminaries with each other, we have created a gap on either side, as far as assignable planets are concerned. Maybe this is yet another rationale why the quincunx isn't considered an aspect, traditionally speaking.


Can you explain why we have a gap that wasn't there before? Sure we always had a quincunx (saturn for each luminary)? Can you explain whether you're acknowledging the inconjunctions here or not? Because you seem to acknowledge an inconjunction (semi-sextile) for Mercury?

I realise this topic is a few weeks old now, but I'm only just reading through it.
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3302
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

muchacho - now you are talking houses, lol... you sure know how to talk about everything except aspects!!

paul - i hadn't been paying attention to what you address in your lastest post to michael, but it's interesting that the system of aspects according to the view given is that the sun and moon are unable to see each other as they are 30 degrees apart in this same system. i am not sure if anything is to be made of that observation, but it is interesting either way..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated