Good day,

Generally, Hellenistic astrologers viewed the Ascendant as the most 'individual' of the points. Some modern schools, ex. gr. the Hamburg School, usually view the Medium Coeli as more important in natal and other astrological analyses.

Might the rapidity of change of position of the points and planets assist in determination of their 'individualistic' relevance?

Using a tropical zodiac, some signs rise more quickly than others. Depending of the rising sign at the time of the event, the rate of change of position of the Ascendant may be greater, lesser or approximately equal to that of the Medium Coeli. Following these two points one finds the planets with rates of change of ecliptical position in the reverse Chaldaean sequence beginning with S?l?n?.

One might bear in mind for genethliacal astrology that the human pandemic currently has more than 7,000 mio. members, resulting in more than 270,000 births daily assuming constant population and an average life expectancy of 70 years. Based on assumptions of equal distributions of birth times throughout the day and of average movement of Ascendant and Medium Coeli of one ecliptical degree each four minutes, about 760 humans born each day share ecliptical degrees of Ascendant and / or Medium Coeli. About 23,000 newborns daily share rising and / or culminating signs.

Actually, human births exceed deaths by about 5 per second of time.

Even with a world population estimated at 350 mio. (5 % of the current number) in 100 CE, Klaudios Ptolomaios in his Tetrabiblos viewed mundane astrological data and analyses as pre-determining for genethliacal astrology.

Best regards,

lihin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate
In 2012 the average global birth rate was 19.15 births per 1,000 total population. Another term used interchangeably with birth rate is natality.

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
7.1billion

That works out to ~370k births/day
assuming an simplified model- land everywhere, decentralized births, and strong preference for birthing between 60N and 60S
~1000 births sharing the same MC degree
~90 births sharing the same MC degree & moon degree
~2.5 births sharing the same MC degree & moon degree & AS degree

Unless an astrologer uses tight orbs (<1/2 degrees) it seems likely they havn't managed to individualize a horoscope.

Potential solutions: I offer Phobos, let's see...
-Phobos orbits closer to its primary than any other known planetary moon.
-It orbits so close to the planet that it moves around Mars faster than Mars rotates.
-Orbital period: 7h 39.2m)

3x faster from a Mars-ocentric viewpoint than the Midheaven(from on the earth)

I should imagine factors resulting in greater individualizing are closer to the individual being born. The argument that the doctor has a greater gravitational effect on the baby than does, for example, Phobos, has some usefulness as a guide. Guided into the terrestrial realm. For example the economic situation two babys are born being surrounded by will have the distinguishing effect on otherwise identical horoscopes at this point and consequently effect the range of events, attitudes taken and decisions, etc

Good afternoon,

The numbers i chose were deliberately cautious, in the same order of magnitude as Mr Ariondys'.

In another thread we discussed some of the questions of including other celestial objects and points than those visible to unassisted human sight in the data subject to astrological analyses. Opinions fortunately differed and no conclusions were reached. If one includes, where should one stop given the proliferation of objects and points discovered and / or proposed?

The satellites of the planets are quite numerous and also found for new dwarf planets like Eris. Might the astrologer's cart (again) be overloaded by their inclusion? What would justify including one (Phobos) and excluding the others? Which ephemerides would be valid, geocentric and / or to the respective planets, ex. gr. Mars for Phobos, given that, from a geocentric perspective, the positions differ little from those of the respective planets? How can one be confident that the astrological attributes assigned to them are valid?

Best regards,

lihin