Wondering how people feel about using the quincunx aspect in horary charts? It seems most horary astrologers choose not to, or consider it a minor aspect.

I've seem where some say they will use the quincunx only to verify what the major aspects are already saying.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Also, if you do use the quincunx, how have you seen it working in a chart? What has it meant for the situations you've done readings for? I have found very little explanation of what the quincunx aspect actually means in an horary chart. It seems that dislocation and adjustment are strong themes with this aspect, and others have said it implies a need to "support," often financially, the other party. ??? The first meaning makes more sense to me, the latter seems a bit too specific.

I'm pretty new, so I don't have examples of my own, though I do have a personal chart right now with a quickly applying quincunx between significators. But the chart is still "live" and I don't yet know the outcome.

So for those of you who have examples of charts with outcomes, I'd be most interested in knowing how the quincunx has played out! Thanks.

Personally, I don?t use it.
If it?s not broken, why fix it? I?ve found that horary simbolism is wide and complex in itself, and adding new things may end up being misleading. Remember than in Horary we don?t only look at aspects, but also at dignities, rulerships, receptions, etc. I believe all this information to be accurate and complete without adding extra things.
The only reason why I would consider a quincunx would be if it adds up to establishing the radicality of the chart (eg. the person that asks the question has a powerful quincunx in their natal chart, so the quincunx in the horary chart is expressing its correspondance to the "owner" of the question).

Best to you,

M.

Well, I don't know. The inconjunct has a different vibe than the other aspects, so that would be one reason to use it: to allow the chart to articulate "inconjunct" circumstances.

In a chart where your primary significator is receiving its next aspect as an inconjunct from the sig of the thing in question, it makes sense to consider it (and of course, to consider it along with dignities, receptions, etc). Nothing is isolated.

Hi all

I would use inconjunction but with caution. I would look into moon to get a clearer picture of what is going on. Inconjunctions are always adjustments.

CD

The word 'inconjunct' expresses the fact that there is no aspectual joining in this relationship - most horary astrologers would see this state of 'aversion' as meaning "not in aspect" or "not able to connect", which of course, is meaningful in itself. I stick to the Ptolemaic aspects, but I notice this.

gabkins wrote:Well, I don't know. The inconjunct has a different vibe than the other aspects, so that would be one reason to use it: to allow the chart to articulate "inconjunct" circumstances.

...Nothing is isolated.

Hi, gabkins!

I also belong to those who notice these aspects but do not see them as a type of connection capable of bringing a positive outcome about.
Deb has already explained as to why this isn't a "perfection" aspect and i must say that, when i think of the charts that i have seen so far in which the main significators were app.150 degrees distant from each other, most of the times the distance was very descriptive of the situation only descriptive of its negative sides and, in some cases, of the causes. When a question puts any kind of relationship between two people in the center of focus, this "aspect" will often suggest a lack of communication and inability to work together. Of course, i'm talking about my own examples but it is expected that, when the planets are not brought into a Ptolemaic aspect, no activity is most likely to take place. Bad or good. The planets are technically in aversion to each other , they cannot communicate and I have found this aspect to be very annoying . It often causes frustration over the matter and Querents usually confirm this. I'd say that the situation is pretty similar in Natal astrology too. It is not surprising, after all, because no activity is certainly not what we want when we are determined to achieve something. Similarly, a lack of communication often puts us in pat position and we feel stuck. I really hate to see quincux in relationship/marriage horaries.

So, whilst i generally agree that nothing is isolated and that we always have to see the whole picture I still believe that when two relevant planets cannot see each other, the lack of communication between them will deeply affect the general outcome - with such a placement, we have no perfection!

Cheers!

I agree with some of the other statements - the fact that there is no aspect, or the planets are in aversion and do not "see" each other properly, says something as it is.

It would obviously show an incompatibility, but it would be different than an opposition because that is like a perfect incompatibility, where the two sides cannot come to any agreement (unless maybe in a perfect reception). It's also not like a square because there is an incompatibility but the planets may be able to work out their differences with effort. In both an opposition and square, the two planets are able to "see" one another somehow. An inconjunct is sort of like two planets that have a wall between them and don't realize or understand their incompatibilities? Robert Hand is one astrologer I usually think of who uses the wall comparison.

Other planets collecting, translating, etc. (or maybe antiscia aspects) can also help these planets come to an understanding, which is often missed in modern methods. Maybe these two planets have a wall between them, but they might have a messanger (third party helper planet), or a peep hole in the wall (antiscia aspect)?

Hey! Thanks all.

Aglaya, you said:

It often causes frustration over the matter and Querents usually confirm this.

Mine was a job horary, and it also confirmed frustration, that the job and I weren't right for each other. My moon was also applying to an opposition with the job, which showed my own mixed-feelings about the job and whether or not it would even be good fro me, compatible with my beliefs, etc.

I'm getting mixed-signals from you though, because you say that you don't use them, but then you explain that they actually do describe the situations of the horary charts you've seen them in very well. So what would be the reason for not using them?

So, whilst i generally agree that nothing is isolated and that we always have to see the whole picture I still believe that when two relevant planets cannot see each other, the lack of communication between them will deeply affect the general outcome - with such a placement, we have no perfection!

I wouldn't expect a quincunx to imply "perfecting" the matter, or bringing it to the resolution that the querent might want, but if it helps to "tell the story" of the chart, then why not pay attention?

Tanit, you said:

An inconjunct is sort of like two planets that have a wall between them and don't realize or understand their incompatibilities?

Yeah, that actually describes the situation perfectly for the situation of my chart. And so I think I will pay attention to quincunx's in my charts because they certainly seem to be saying something. It was an interesting chart because there were fixed stars exactly conjunct the ascendant, the job itself, the 7th house cusp, and the 11th house cusp. And these were all major fixed stars, not the scattered minor ones. My question had been, "How strong of an applicant am I?"

Ascendant was less than 1 degree from Antares, showing me strong and capable here. My application itself (L3) was Saturn in Libra, exalted, though influenced I guess by malefic Mars.

Descendant (I assumed this was saying something about my opponents, other people vying for the position) was less than 1 degree conjunct Aldebaran.

11th House cusp (my network of people doing leftist movement work, which is the kind of job position this was) was also strong, was less than 1 degree conjunct Spica.

And the job itself was Mercury conjunct Regulus, and past the 29th degree mark of Leo, so it could be considered in Virgo, where because it was a day chart, it was in its own House, exaltation, and term.

They did tell me that I had a strong resume, but were "in a position of having to hire people with more direct experience in the labor movement." I have a ton of direct experience in the labor movement, so really I think they meant I needed *paid* experience, or something else. Due to the inconjunct, I mean, who knows what "direct experience" actually meant as we are clearly incapable of understanding each other.

Tanit, Aglaya, and Deb:

What do you mean when you say planets in quincunx do not form an aspect??? I don't understand what that means.

But actually, I think if there were a quincunx applying with strong mutual reception, and if the moon were also looking positive, then the quincunx *could* potentially indicate a favorable outcome, though it wouldn't come easily (just like with squares or oppositions).

People who don't "see eye to eye" or are not compatible sometimes do overcome those problems in real life, and so why should we not allow horary charts to show these sorts of possibilities as well?

In my chart, there was no positive reception and actually instances of being in each other's detriment/fall. But in other charts, that may not be the case.

Hello gabkins

I'm getting mixed-signals from you though, because you say that you don't use them, but then you explain that they actually do describe the situations of the horary charts you've seen them in very well. So what would be the reason for not using them?

Reading what Aglaya's written I'm not sure where you've drawn the conclusion from that Aglaya doesn't use them. Aglaya's saying that she does use the information provided by them.

The difference is that in the older astrology texts the quincunx/inconjunct isn't an aspect. It can't be. But that doesn't mean that planets placed in Signs that are disjunct (inconjunct/quincunx) are not describing the situation enquired after in horary, or in a nativity, which is what Deb, Aglaya and Tanit have described. They're all saying that having planets in aversion to each other does help to 'tell the story' and that aversion is built into the heart of the traditional astrology 'worldview'.

Regards

H.

gabkins wrote:Hey! Thanks all.

Aglaya,


I'm getting mixed-signals from you though, because you say that you don't use them, but then you explain that they actually do describe the situations of the horary charts you've seen them in very well. So what would be the reason for not using them?

So, whilst i generally agree that nothing is isolated and that we always have to see the whole picture I still believe that when two relevant planets cannot see each other, the lack of communication between them will deeply affect the general outcome - with such a placement, we have no perfection!

I wouldn't expect a quincunx to imply "perfecting" the matter, or bringing it to the resolution that the querent might want, but if it helps to "tell the story" of the chart, then why not pay attention?

Tanit, Aglaya, and Deb:

What do you mean when you say planets in quincunx do not form an aspect??? I don't understand what that means.

Hi, again, Gabkins!



The answer to your first question (mixed-signals) is more or less hidden in your last question!

Obviously, as you mentioned later in your post, when the planets are inconjunct we have no perfection. At least not a perfection promised by the main rulers, of course. The reason is simple- when 150 or 30 degrees apart, planets cannot form any of the Major or Ptolemaic aspects (conjunction, sextile, opposition, square and trine) and hence do not promise the positive outcome because. as long as we follow traditional rules, we need to se one of the aforementioned aspects in order to conclude that the perfection of the matter (or any relevant activity) is possible. Planets that are inconjunct are basically out of each others sight which can sometimes be translated as non-cooperative, not in touch, unable to communicate and so on. And, whilst modern astrologers will usually refer to such a link as "quincunx" we often simply say that they're inconjunct or outside of any aspect (placed in the signs that are in aversion to each other and from which, no matter where inside the sign they're placed, they cannot form an exact Major aspect).
But the value of the aspect stays the same regardless of how we name it and whether we call it "the lack of aspect" or inconjunction/quincunx/etc. The planets do not form a major aspect (and it is only those aspects that, according to traditional literature, can promise an activity that doesn't, of course, need to be positive), they are not in a position from which they can communicate with each other in any way and, unless they are brought together by a third planet, they stay out of touch. But, even then, the distance between them has a symbolical meaning and can add some useful descriptive details to the whole picture. So, we pay attention to them because they help us to understand the situation better - they are descriptive of the relationship between the Querent and the Quesited no matter whom or what the Quesited is! But we say that the planets are brought into an aspect because they do not form a Major or Ptolemaic aspect!

I hope I have managed to answer at least one part of your question!

Cheers!

Now that i see handn's post I wonder how come I had to to use so many words to say something so simple!

Obviously, handn has got the point - it is the modern authors who usually regard such distances as aspects whilst traditional literature teaches us to always look for major aspects. Tghis is probably what confused youu!
Of course, non Ptolemaic aspects are not completely neglected in traditional literature; Lilly actually does talk about "Kepler's aspects" only he obviously didn't think that they can be as useful in Horary as they appeared to be in Natal studies. You will also come across the term "minor aspects".