31
Throwing my own 2 cents in on the issue of oppositions. I don't agree that they show "perfect enmity", unless I'm not apprehending that phrase correctly; the square would be better described that way, as showing two planets acting at cross-purposes, with one probably overcoming the other due to its position. The opposition, I feel, shows two planets going toward equal but opposite directions, less enmity and more hostile disregard for each other.


Hello Gabe,

I am quite surprised to hear you stating this. The view that the opposition is the most difficult of all the ptolemaic aspects is fairly consistent in classical and medieval astrology. The notion that the square is the most difficult aspect only became predominant in modern astrology.

For example, in the Carmen Astrologicum , Dorotheus refers to the trine as an aspect of much love and to the square as one of a medium amount of love. No such friendship is indicated by the opposition.

Going back to Pythagorean number symbolism the opposition is based upon the divisive symbolism of number two, which is the epitome of separation and enmity. Only occasionally is it taken to represent agreement - usually between conflicting parties who strike up an unstable alliance.

This has been my experience of the opposition in horary astrology where the traditional view has been personally validated for me in chart after chart. I accept the dynamic is different in natal astrology. The person has a lifetime to resolve the internal and external dynamics symbolized by an opposition. Nevertheless, this does not change the very challenging nature of the opposition.

In his Astronomica Manilius acknowledged a fundamental similarity between opposing signs because of their common gender, but added that more obvious differences predominate:

''... sign facing sign they shine opposed, yet because of their nature they are oft borne in alliance and a mutual sympathy springs up between them, linked as they are by the tie of sex:.... but over this tie the seasons prevail: Cancer resists Capricorn, though females both, since summer conflicts with winter.., wonder not at the signs so situate doing battle.''
Astronomica, 2.4 10; (Loeb p.115).

The opposition is not only unfriendly, but a very strong and forceful aspect because the planets have a clear and direct view of each other.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

32
Mark wrote: .....The creation of what are presented as problems like this seems a good example of how disconnected modern astrology can become from fundamental astrological principles.

Mark
Mark, this is a fallacy of over-generalization. Any system of astrology has merits and problems. Please don't get me started on some of the bizarre comments and wrong predictions of astrologers of days of yore!

Modern astrology contains the good, the bad, and the ugly. So does Hellenistic, Medieval, Vedic, Uranian, you-name-it astrology. A lot of modern astrology does have fundamental principles: they're just different than the traditional ones. An example would be rulerships involving the outer planets. I am active in two "modern" astrology websites and I seldom see anyone using the Liz Greene style of psychological astrology, which seems to be the particular bane of most modern astrology's critics. On the other hand, if we believe psychology does have something to offer the study of human behaviour and personality today; then surely it does share at least some common ground with astrology.

We need more astrologers sharing their insights across the divides, not raising the barricades.

I have a bunch of oppositions in my chart, including Saturn and Pluto opposite my sun. These were pretty challenging, and psychology did have something useful to say about projection, splitting, and shadow material in terms of how they functioned in my life. IMO the best way to handle an opposition to one's sun is to see the positive traits of the opposing planet as one's greatest teacher. Saturn, for example, teachers hard work, self-discipline, resourcefulness, and perseverance. So it has had a positive side, as I can see now--at an age somewhat past my second Saturn return! So in my case, a modern perspective was extremely helpful.

33
this is a fallacy of over-generalization. Any system of astrology has merits and problems. Please don't get me started on some of the bizarre comments and wrong predictions of astrologers of days of yore!
To be honest and with no rancour intended the only fallacy here is your perception of what I stated.

Note the quote you selected again!
this seems a good example of how disconnected modern astrology can become from fundamental astrological principles.
I wasn't seeking to encompass all of modern astrology in that statement. The generalisation is therefore yours not mine.
A lot of modern astrology does have fundamental principles: they're just different than the traditional ones. An example would be rulerships involving the outer planets.
True but my emphasis in my reply to Tara was as follows:
Its whether we work with the core founding principles of astrology
Clearly, what I see as 'core' founding principles of astrology are not important to some people here. Thats fair enough. I can live with that and sleep soundly. However, this is a specific thread discussing a quite specific point. The basic way the thread developed it was being assumed that the lack of an opposition was a serious gap or lack in a chart. I simply sought to support the view expressed by Kirk that that notion is simply not consistent with most of the understanding of aspects throughout history. The implicit assumption being proposed was that the opposition was a positive feature of the chart much to be much desired. I'm afraid I couldn't sit on my hands and lets such comments pass without putting forward the counter-view.
I am active in two "modern" astrology websites and i seldom see anyone using the Lize Greene style of psychological astrology, which seems to be the particular bane of most modern astrology's critics. On the other hand, if we believe psychology does have something to offer the study of human behaviour and personality today; then surely it does share at least some common ground with astrology.
I have no personal issues with Liz Greene. Its not the kind of astrology that interests me but then neither is Uranian, Huber, Noel Tyl etc. That doesn't mean I dont think astrology doesn't have a psychological dimension. The whole assumption modern astrology =psychological, traditional =technique orientated is a myth in my opinion.
We need more astrologers sharing their insights across the divides, not raising the barricades.
To be frank that feels like a rather cheap and easy parting shot. I am quite open to sharing my views with others and being challenged on them. However, expecting us all to agree on everything is quite unrealistic in my view. You seem to be upset that I have firm views that dont coincide with the modern perspective you uphold. Underlying these kinds of discussions are differering philosophical evaluations of the value of 'progress' vs maintaining core founding principles as a starting point.
I have a bunch of oppositions in my chart, including Saturn and Pluto opposite my sun. These were pretty challenging, and psychology did have something useful to say about projection, splitting, and shadow material in terms of how they functioned in my life. IMO the best way to handle an opposition to one's sun is to see the positive traits of the opposing planet as one's greatest teacher. Saturn, for example, teachers hard work, self-discipline, resourcefulness, and perseverance. So it has had a positive side, as I can see now--at an age somewhat past my second Saturn return! So in my case, a modern perspective was extremely helpful.
I agree that anything difficult in our chart can ultimately be a teacher and something we can work through. I am not a supporter of fatalistic, negative astrology. Without insight and reflection traditional can be presented that way. Keep in my mind much of my comment relates to my experience of horary or electional astrology. I do think the situation is different in natal astrology. I just feel when something is hard and difficult (like Saturn) we should not fool ourselves into considering it soft and cosy. However, we can all only uphold our own experience in astrology. Clearly what is valid in my experience may not be yours.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

34
Edited: For forum members, the reason I am temporally locking the thread is to give members a time for cool down.

The topic is about oppositions in natal charts. These topic was artificially sidetracked to seem like some kind of great debate over traditional vs modern astrology. It is not.

The lock down will be over in two days. Until them I remember forum members to adress ideas and not the people.

best regards and let?s remember that mercury is retrograde.
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com

35
I?ve just returned from a conference, and as yet I?m barely functioning, but I?m currently looking out the window at an almost full Moon, feeling that Yuzuru was wise to force us to just ?think? about this thread for a while.

Discussions in this forum very often ?reveal? the nature of the topic under focus, which can make dialogues on difficult aspects tense at times ? but that?s what gives us the opportunity to understand the tension of those aspects. In a way it is interesting to notice how this thread has become polarised; that?s what oppositions do, and its not always easy to integrate conflicting principles.

I think this thread was created to explore the pyschological implications of having no oppositions in the birth chart, so (when re-opened) it ought to go back to that focus. I don?t see any reason why members can?t discuss that from various perspectives though, and bring the benefits of different experiences together.

To stop and think about it, this forum brings together a lot of differing perspectives ? siderealists, tropicalists, advocates of various specialised techniques and styles of astrology. It would be difficult for anyone to remain a member for long unless there was a willingness to tolerate alternate opinion and show basic respect towards other experiences. Sometimes breathers are required, but overall, I think the membership as a whole does amazingly well to be as diverse and generallly obliging as it is :)

Deb

PS - Have noticed a couple of threads that I'd like to post to, and will do so in a day or two, when I am more organised.

36
I am in complete disagreement with the idea that the square rather than the opposition is more indicative of ?perfect enmity?. Mark quoted Lilly. Here are a couple more quotes for those who may be interested in what some of the old astrologers had to say.

From the 9th century CE: Abu Ma'shar, The Abbreviation of the Introduction to Astrology (tr. Burnett), p. 22:

?To the fourth and tenth sign is the aspect of the quartile [square] and of antagonism. . . . To the seventh from it is the aspect of opposition and of enmity.?

I like this way of putting it ? the antagonism of the square increases to the enmity of the opposition.


From the 12th century CE: Ibn-Ezra, The Beginning of Wisdom (tr. Epstein), p. 82:

?The strongest of the aspects is the aspect of the opposition. Next in strength is the quartile aspect, then the trine aspect, and the weakest of all is the sextile aspect. The opposition aspect is complete enmity and the quartile aspect is of semi-enmity. The trine aspect is complete friendship and the sextile aspect is half a friendship.?


As I wrote in my first post we have plenty of polarity to work with in astrology. All charts contain indications of polarity. What is not necessarily present is problematic polarity. That's what the opposition aspect points to. A human life doesn't require such openly conflicting forces, but some lives do indeed have plenty of it.

37
Hi Kirk & Mark (and everybody),

I'd argue that the overcoming of a planet by another squaring it from above(the 10th sign from the first planet) and thus dominating the first planet(from Antiochus, Paulus, etc.) and its affairs is worse than the opposition, which is a more complicated relation than "enmity" describes, perhaps one of both mutual hostility and interest.

As for the "need" of an opposition, I can agree that it is not necessary or even desirable. Every chart as every person is unique and will resist any sort of absolute fit to a particular paradigm, whether that paradigm be psychological or whatever.

Gabe

38
GR wrote:
I'd argue that the overcoming of a planet by another squaring it from above(the 10th sign from the first planet) and thus dominating the first planet(from Antiochus, Paulus, etc.) and its affairs is worse than the opposition, which is a more complicated relation than "enmity" describes, perhaps one of both mutual hostility and interest.

Gabe
For what it is worth, I would say the same, that a predominating square is VERY, VERY disturbing.

margherita
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com

39
It's worth a lot to me, Margherita! :D At least I know I'm not that crazy.

Gabe
margherita wrote:
GR wrote:
I'd argue that the overcoming of a planet by another squaring it from above(the 10th sign from the first planet) and thus dominating the first planet(from Antiochus, Paulus, etc.) and its affairs is worse than the opposition, which is a more complicated relation than "enmity" describes, perhaps one of both mutual hostility and interest.

Gabe
For what it is worth, I would say the same, that a predominating square is VERY, VERY disturbing.

margherita

40
Hi Gabe (& now Margherita) ,

I would see the 10th sign square as dominating along the lines of a driving ambition or goal, the tension produced by the desire to achieve something. That's not the same as the flat out confrontation ? the frustrating NO! ? of the opposition.

41
Hi Kirk,

Fear that we are going to derail the thread again. But, the dominating from the 10th isn't free; it comes at the expense of the other planet! It's not NO, it's "Here's my idea, let me shove it down your throat, and let me know what it tastes like?" I'd rather have the No, thank you very much. And actually, following the progression of the aspects, the overcoming square is going to be preceded by the opposition, retrogradation notwithstanding.

Gabe
Kirk wrote:Hi Gabe (& now Margherita) ,

I would see the 10th sign square as dominating along the lines of a driving ambition or goal, the tension produced by the desire to achieve something. That's not the same as the flat out confrontation ? the frustrating NO! ? of the opposition.

42
But, the dominating from the 10th isn't free; it comes at the expense of the other planet! It's not NO, it's "Here's my idea, let me shove it down your throat, and let me know what it tastes like?"
Yes, the 10th-sign square does seem to be more of an obsession, a needed fulfillment, a goad, a drive, a persistent dream, a command ? the command to produce/achieve/acquire something. But that something is for the chart native. The square can produce a result for the native.

The opposition is the forced need for the native to give way. It's something that the native can't have all to himself or herself (or the native is split within). The opposition produces divisiveness for the native, an unstable state of either/or. What is produced for the native is the unstable state or a dichotomy.

Generalizations, in any case.

* * * * * * * * *

Edited to add: With so many factors to consider I'm not sure I should be getting so carried away with this 10th-sign square idea ? I'm getting myself into hot water. But I would say that oppositions are more simplistically difficult and problem-causing than 10th-sign squares.