My East Point

[sotonye]

As I understand this auxiliary angle, it's just an ecliptical square to the MC. However, my eastpoint in solar fire is 5° away from an exact square to the MC, I'm not really sure why this is or if this is some mistake? My Mercury is exactly conjunct this point but given that it's not actually square the MC I'm not sure how this planet could be considered angular

[Jim Eshelman]

As I understand this auxiliary angle, it's just an ecliptical square to the MC. However, my eastpoint in solar fire is 5° away from an exact square to the MC, I'm not really sure why this is or if this is some mistake? My Mercury is exactly conjunct this point but given that it's not actually square the MC I'm not sure how this planet could be considered angular

You're right in a sense and wrong in a sense.

You're right in that the ecliptical square to MC is the longitude of the astronomical eastpoint (the point due east on the horizon where the horizon, the prime vertical, and the celestial equator converge). However, outside of the Morinus house system, that's almost never called the eastpoint.

The point called Eastpoint has the longitude of a point that is 90° from MC along the equator, in right ascension. (Look on the Reports page in SF and you will see that its Right Ascension is always 90° fro MC.) It has no real ecliptical value except that it is a strong hint that there might be a planet conjunct it. A planet with the same longitude as this point and 0°00' latitude, like Sun, will always be 90° from MC; but as most planets have some latitude most of the time, they will be square MC in RA when they are not quite on this point.

If you want to "complete the set," you can add that, while these two points mark squares to MC in longitude and right ascension respectively, Ascendant marks the square to Midheaven in prime vertical longitude.

As a practical example for you: Your Eastpoint is 5°02' Taurus (RA 57°31'). Your Mercury at 5°18' Taurus would seem, in longitude, to be 0°16' past EP but, since it isn't an ecliptical point, we need instead to notice that your Mercury has RA 57°18', is really 0°13' before EP. Similarly, your Pluto at 5°02' Scorpio looks like it's opposite to the minute (0°00') your EP, but this isn't how we calculate it. Instead, the critical matter is that your Pluto has RA 240°30' (60°30' + 180°), so it is really 2°59' from EP barely worth noting. (The important angularity for your Pluto is that it is 1°10' below Descendant.)

How not to calculate these:

5°02' Tau EP
5°02' Sco Pluto (0°00')
5°18' Tau Mercury (0°13' away)

The correct way to calculate these:

57°18' RA Mercury (0°13' away)
57°31' RA EP
60°30' RA Pluto +180° (for the opposition) (2°59' away)

[sotonye]

I was measuring this point wrong the entire time!!! Thank you for informing me Mr. E, I didn't know the EP is only a square to the MC in right ascension, I completely forgot about this measurement. Do we use RA for anything else? Any other auxiliary angle? And how considerable are planets conjunct the east point relative to those on the the MC-ASC axis?

[Jim Eshelman]

Do we use RA for anything else?

It's a factor in many things, but there isn't much else for which it's used directly. The most direct way to tell when a planet is exactly on MC or IC is by RA, but if it's not exactly on the angle (0°00'), it's effective distance is better measured in PV longitude.

And, since planets exactly on MC, IC, EP, and WP are conjunct them in RA, this provides the way to measure a different class of mundane aspect: Sometimes one planet will be (say) on MC and another (say) on EP and they will be too far out of orb in longitude or PV longitude to count as a square; but because RA is the common framework of their angularity, the square in RA is effective. (There are several examples of this in Sidereal Mundane Astrology.)

And how considerable are planets conjunct the east point relative to those on the the MC-ASC axis?

There does seem a subjective feel that the primary axes - horizon and meridian - are most important. However, this may only be subjective impression or preconception, because it's hard to demonstrate it statistically. The orbs are much different, so the strength-curve of the angularity is more acute - EP/WP contacts are most vivid (call it Class 1) within 2° and I've seen them work out to 3°, but no more than that.

But - using mundane astrology as the illimitably inexhaustible mine that it is - there seems nothing to distinguish Mars within 2° of a Capsolar Quotidian horizon or meridian for a major fire from the same planet within the same orb of EP or WP. (The fire still burns!)

[sotonye]

Mr. E! This is a great and valuable rundown of RA, thank you for enlightening me as always