Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

This isn't exactly right for "speculative," because it doesn't deal with a fact or actuality, just with how to manage and organize valid factors we already now. It IS experimental, though.

Without wanting to look too Astrodynish, I wanted to see how easy it would be to quantify something I've asserted for a while. It is: That each planet represents a tight bundle of needs that everybody has - though we have them with different strengths and priorities - and that natal analysis is substantially a process of discerning which of these needs is most important to an individual and, more generally, the "priority stack" of the ten needs.

I've been playing with the following rules set. Aside from the current task, it gives a sense of relative priorities of different chart factors. TMSA has all the numbers (% of strength) for what follows.

• No planet gets a score higher than 100% by definition.
• ANGULARITY: Start by listing the planet % strength based on angularity. (TMSA factors in both major and minor angles.)
• LUMINARY SIGNS: A planet ruling or exalted in the Sun-sign or Moon-sign automatically gets at least 90% strength (or 100% [95%] if it is dignified in both luminary signs).
• HARD LUMINARY ASPECTS: Each planet conjunct, opposite, or square Sun or Moon gets at least the score of that aspect's strength. - If the planet is a luminary dignitary (that has already earned 90%), then it is at least 95% with a Class 1 luminary aspect or 92% for a Class 2 aspect (no extra points for Class 3).
• SOFT LUMINARY ASPECTS: Each planet trine or sextile Sun or Moon gets at least one-half the strength score of the aspect. (No add-ons for luminary dignitaries.)
• STATIONS: A stationary planets gets at least a 75% score. - If it is already 90% as a luminary dignitary, it gets at least a 95% score (5% "bump").

A few notes to address in advance some likely questions:

1. I tried lowering the luminary dignity score to 80% (90% for two). It didn't work. The planets didn't score high enough. The threshold needs to be 90% minimum.

2. I'm not adding anything for octiles. Maybe I should, but (at the very least) the math would be different and the effect would be minimal in most cases.

3. At first, I gave luminary soft aspects full strength. However, it unbalanced everything. I finally realized that - since this is not an overall planetary strength system (like Astrodynes) but, rather, an effort to determine the potency of various needs, this made sense. Hard aspects give a demand, insistence, and intensity to needs that soft aspects just don't give. They may not even be needs, in fact (having emotional force), but closer to biases (the mental equivalent of the needs). Possibly they should have no add-ons at all but, at present, I'm giving them a few points.

Here is my chart as a first example. Start with the angularity scores. Overwrite the luminary dignity scores (for Mercury and Uranus). Flesh out with luminary aspect values. (Then stations, but I don't have any.)

Moo 97%
Sun 60%
Mer 15% 90%
Ven 0% 31% (tr. Moon)
Mar 45% 48% (sx. Moon)
Jup 36%
Sat 23%
Ura 37% 90%
Nep 46%
Plu 0%

After sorting:

97% Moo
90% Ura Mer
60% Sun
48% Mar [LA: Sun-Mars mundo sq. 57%]
46% Nep
36% Jup
31% Ven [LA: 100%]
23% Sat [LA: 41%]
0% Plu [LA: 99%]

Until overlays for local angles are considered, my strongest need clusters are adaptation (Moon), information needs (Mercury), and renewal and freedom needs (Uranus). I can usually be expected to respond to these needs before responding to stimuli toward other needs. On relocating to LA, though (relocation adds things, it doesn't take things away), Venus increases to 100% and Pluto to 99% because of local angularities, though they don't fully replace the "stack" from the birthplace nativity.

For a second example, here is the often confusing mixed-message nativity of Donald Trump. We start with the angularity scores. Overwrite the luminary dignity scores (for Moon, Venus, and Mars for his Taurus-Scorpio luminaries); except Mars is already a higher score so it meets the "at least 90%" rule without modification. Flesh out with luminary aspect values and then extra points for the stationary Jupiter. Note that Moon and Sun aspect each closely, so they both get the automatic 96% aspect strength for this.

Moo 47% 90% 96%
Sun 44% 96%
Mer 20%
Ven 0% 90%
Mar 97%
Jup 7% 37% (sx. Moon) 75%
Sat 1%
Ura 53% 86% (op. Moon)
Nep 30%
Plu 19%

After sorting:

97% Mar
96% Moo Sun
90% Ven
86% Ura
75% Jup
30% Nep
20% Mer
19% Plu
1% Sat

We can see that his power-dominance needs (Mars) are strongest, followed by his adaptive and individuating needs (luminaries). He can be expected to respond to satisfy these needs first. He is least inclined to gratify his materialistic needs, which refers to survival, constraint, and making something concrete and enduring.

Taking a more familiar face, let's work up Steve's chart. As before, we start with the angularity scores, overwrite these with luminary dignity scores (for Mercury and Mars for his Virgo-Scorpio luminaries), then flesh out with luminary aspect values. (He has no stationary planets.)

Moo 63%
Sun 44%
Mer 9% 90%
Ven 35% 77% (co. Sun)
Mar 1% 90%
Jup 99%
Sat 66%
Ura 38% 99% (sq. Sun)
Nep 17% 50% (sx. Moon)
Plu 62%

After sorting:

99% Ura Jup
90% Mer Mar
77% Ven
66% Sat
63% Moo
62% Plu
50% Nep
44% Sun

Steve's renewal and freedom needs (Sun-Uranus sq. 0°44') inch out his social ambition needs (Jupiter rising 1°39') only by a little - they essentially are equally strong, and (by this theoretical modelling) he will move to satisfy these needs ahead of others. Next most important are his information and power-control needs with Mercury and Mars.

Finally (for now), since Mike's software is what makes this undertaking easy by giving the raw strength numbers, let's see how his needs stack lines up. (It's a good example since there are contrary natures shown in the chart). We start, as always, with the angularity scores, overwrite these with luminary dignity scores (for Sun, Venus, Neptune, and Pluto for his Pisces-Aries luminaries), then flesh out with luminary aspect values. (He has no stationary planets.)

Moo 4%
Sun 1% 90%
Mer 3% 100% (co. Moon)
Ven 2% 90% 98% (co. Sun)
Mar 98%
Jup 14%
Sat 77%
Ura 38%
Nep 25% 90%
Plu 44% 90%

After sorting:

100% Mer
98% Ven Mar
90% Sun Nep Plu
77% Sat
38% Ura
14% Jup
4% Moo

We at once see a person most motivated by information needs and his passions (i.e., his affection and power needs).

Have fun playing with this. Feel free to dive into the thread.

Cool. I've already been doing something like this, though without following such specific rules. (But something very close to the spirit of these.)

Your method puts my Mars at 100%. That's the one thing that feels wrong. I've always felt that Moon is stronger than Mars. I cite it because it's quite distinct to Mars and still only the third most angular planet.

Patrick Machado wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 3:01 pm Your method puts my Mars at 100%. That's the one thing that feels wrong. I've always felt that Moon is stronger than Mars. I cite it because it's quite distinct to Mars and still only the third most angular planet.

Let's double check that and see how it works out. At a glance, I don't see why Mars should be above 92%(Capricorn Moon + Class 2 Sun-Mars conjunction), but let's work it up.

Moo 98%
Sun 58%
Mer 100%
Ven 11% 28%
Mar 52% 90% + 2% = 92%
Jup 1%
Sat 8% 90%
Ura 99%
Nep 88%
Plu 34% 51% (sq. Sun)

After sorting:

100% Mer
99% Ura
98% Moo
92% Mar
90% Sat
88% Nep
58% Sun
51% Plu
28% Ven
1% Jup

I get Mars' needs as your fourth-strongest needs, with Moon stronger than Mars by several percentage points.

The method outlined gives Mars a minimum of 90% because it's a dignitary of your Capricorn Moon. Then, because it has an 87%-strong conjunction with Sun (lower than the guaranteed 90% minimum) it gets a 2% add-on for a Class 2 major hard aspect. (If you consider Class 1 conjunctions reaching past three and a half degrees, it then gets a 5% add-on instead, which still puts it in fourth place.) - Did I miss a step?

Jim Eshelman wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 3:19 pm I get Mars' needs as your fourth-strongest needs, with Moon stronger than Mars by several percentage points.

The method outlined gives Mars a minimum of 90% because it's a dignitary of your Capricorn Moon. Then, because it has an 87%-strong conjunction with Sun (lower than the guaranteed 90% minimum) it gets a 2% add-on for a Class 2 major hard aspect. (If you consider Class 1 conjunctions reaching past three and a half degrees, it then gets a 5% add-on instead, which still puts it in fourth place.) - Did I miss a step?

I misinterpreted the fourth rule thinking that Mars would get the full score from the Sun-Mars aspect. But the second part of the rule operates instead of the first part if the condition is met, got it. (I actually interpreted it correctly on first reading, then fell back on this interpretation which would obviously make a lot of planets way stronger than they should be. Brain cramp.)

But... Yes, that list looks great.

Forty-plus years ago, one of my tricks for assessing what someone needed in a relationship was based on the popular idea that (primarily) opposites attract. I haven't felt for decades that this was particularly true, but I do think it was especially valuable for the very young man that I was.

The trick was to write out the 10 planet glyphs and cross off anything that - well, mostly the list above. The luminary rulers, angular planets, stationary planets, those aspecting the luminaries. What was left at the end was "what you need." In my case:

Su Mo Me Ve Ma Ju Sa Ur Ne Pl
(And then, in LA, strike out Pluto.)

Since Sun isn't that weak, this mostly meant I "needed" Saturn - my weakest planetary energy - and, indeed, I attracted and was attracted to Saturn. (My first wife had Saturn rising, AK had both luminaries conjunct Saturn, etc.)

Patrick Machado wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 3:41 pm I misinterpreted the fourth rule thinking that Mars would get the full score from the Sun-Mars aspect. But the second part of the rule operates instead of the first part if the condition is met, got it. (I actually interpreted it correctly on first reading, then fell back on this interpretation which would obviously make a lot of planets way stronger than they should be. Brain cramp.)

Actually, both parts operate since the first part says it gets at least the 87% score of the aspect. It's already at least 87% when it's 90%. Then the second part kicks in and gives it an extra 2% nudge.

Thanks for bringing it up - this needs feedback and shakedown PLUS it gave me a chance to clarify.

Jim Eshelman wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 3:47 pm Thanks for bringing it up - this needs feedback and shakedown PLUS it gave me a chance to clarify.

In that case, nitpick: I think Uranus should get 100%, since it has close angularity (which gave it the 99% score) plus a Sun-sign dignity plus a Moon conjunction.

Patrick Machado wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 3:57 pm

Jim Eshelman wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 3:47 pm Thanks for bringing it up - this needs feedback and shakedown PLUS it gave me a chance to clarify.

In that case, nitpick: I think Uranus should get 100%, since it has close angularity (which gave it the 99% score) plus a Sun-sign dignity plus a Moon conjunction.

I decided to structure this (mostly) not as cumulative but as establishing baselines. I know the long-standing principle (often given lip-service by me) is to think of multiple occurrences of the same theme as reinforcing each other: My Mars in Sagittarius opposite Jupiter making it MORE Mars-Jupiter than if Mars were elsewhere. Mostly, though, I'm not sure it works that way in practice.

So I looked for where I really thought "boosting" occurred and (as it stands at the moment, anyway), gave extra points in two conditions: First, if there is a luminary aspect that makes a planet (by itself) stronger than the angularity, then it gets the full value of the aspect; but, if less, the fact that the angular planet is also aspecting a luminary should give it SOME kind of bonus, I felt, so it gets several more points if REALLY close, and a couple of points if it's wider.

The other was the station. Experience and stats say this makes a planet much stronger than if it were not stationary; but the stats for strength from this are MUCH weaker than those for angularity (and experience supports the idea that a station isn't as strong as angularity, though it's something similar). So, I set a lower "guaranteed minimum" for stationary and, if it already had a higher score than that minimum, add some bonus points.

One place I didn't add bonus points is using angularity to "up" some other factor. It seemed to work best when angularity is the starting point (the guaranteed minimum) and can be boosted by other factors but doesn't act as a booster. (Specifically for this purpose. Remember, I'm quite intentionally NOT trying to identify the strongest planet. "Strongest planet" means lots of different things, i.e., "strongest" means lots of different things. Instead, I'm specifically looking for the strongest of the ten sets of needs. As time goes by, there's a good chance I'll drop out soft luminary aspects because, while they contribute one kind of "strength," viz., linkage of a planetary energy to the identity core, they don't have the kind of psychological emotional drive we expect behind a real need.)

Anyway, looking at your Uranus, you noted

it has close angularity (which gave it the 99% score) plus a Sun-sign dignity plus a Moon conjunction

I understand why you think this - that the angularity needs to have some kind of plus for all those things. That would be the Astrodyne model where points are given for all sorts of things and eventually add up to bigger and bigger numbers.

Uranus' angularity is 99%. As Sun-sign ruler, I wanted it to guarantee a score of at least 90%, which is met by the 99% score (but, under the current model, nothing is added). I have nothing but theory to suggest to me that a person with Uranus 0°28' from square MC has more, stronger freedom and renewal needs if they also have Sun in Aquarius.

I guess I think of these "minimums" as "how high is the tide pushed," or something like that.

And you have Moon conjunct Uranus within 2°43', at 92% strength. If Uranus weren't angular, and you just had the Aquarius Sun and this Moon-Uranus conjunction, you'd get the full 92% credit for the aspect because it's stronger than the "guaranteed minimum" of the Aquarius luminary. (Not as an add-on, but because there is a higher "guaranteed minimum" with the aspect.) The angularity then pushes it even further, up to 99%.

Of course, I might change my mind one of these days and these exchanges are valuable (for us and for those who come along later and read them). At the moment, it doesn't feel like these should be cumulative. (Except, it does feel that a luminary aspect should add something and a station should add something; so there ya go.)

I think you are onto something with this Jim. This would be wonderful to have a good preliminary quantification of. By TMSA 0.6 I should be able to compute these numbers with user selectable parameters (using your recommendation as defaults. The calculation would be quite simple and while the technique is not synastry, it will likely be will likely be useful in that area as well as natal delineation.

Cool. I don't know how many different reports we want strung down at the bottom, but MAYBE this would be useful. Right now, all the numbers are already calculated (angularity strength and aspect strength), the rest are constants.

Hardest part: Deciding how to identify a planet as stationary! (Another conversation for another time. Working from an ephemeris, I would use one criterion for the fastest planets, another for the rest; and Solar Fire has two options and I wish I didn't have to pick just one.)

Meanwhile, I'll keep seeing if this actually seems to give something useful in people's charts.

That's why I'm not thinking of doing it before 0.6 and could easily postpone it to 0.7, to give the idea time to mature. In terms of the report, I'm thinking of a single % number added to the first line of the cosmic state report for each planet.

Nice and compact. (Takes three characters and a space.)

While the following doesn't belong in this thread, I'll add it and may delete it later. When hand-calculating charts from an ephemeris, the least period I considered something stationary was within 24 hours of the station (or, more crudely, the days before, on, and after the station). However, I also considered it stationary if the planet was in the same arcminute as it would be at the station (which could be a week or more either side for Pluto, e.g.).

Solar Fire lets you pick EITHER "when within this timespan" of the exact station (in days and hours) OR "within this distance from exactness" (in minutes and seconds) OR when actual speed is less than a set value/day, or "when speed relative to average is less than x%". None of these works reasonably all planets, but I've defaulted it to within 1 day of the actual station. (It misses things like my wife's stationary Saturn (the station was just less than four days from her birth).

Blaming Neptune is enormous fun.

But, yes: Generally when I have returned to near my birthplace and Moon has moved back to an angle, I've felt it hugely (and not always pleasantly, given that environment). An exception was Memphis where it is EXACTLY angular (much closer than at birth) and there was no overwhelm. My theory is, first, I was there under an excellent new SSR, and, second, I probably WAS absorbing everything around me deeply - the experience of the place was quite powerful on the senses.

I am curious about this approach.

One of the foundations of Noel's approach related to "planets as a bundle of needs," so I am onboard with the main idea. Ranking the planets in an astrodyne way, (though not astrodynes), seems to be a good approach in comparing the various needs one to another.

I can't get Mike's program to work on my normal astrology laptop that I use. (which will hopefully soon be replaced with a new i7, 16GB machine)

Could you list my planets as you have done in the other examples? I'm thinking the Moon will be number one, but I'm open for other perspectives...

July 3, 1962
6:16:44 am (CDT)
Mount Vernon, IL
ASC: 24° 18' Gemini

Thank you

Sure. First, since you can't get the program working, here are the primary outputs.
Ranking with the current theoretical approach:

90 - Moo, Mer, Jup
87 - Sun
55 - Sat
36 - Ven
28 - Nep
14 - Ura
8 - Mar
0 - Plu

Because you have no stationary planets and no luminary conjunctions, oppositions, and squares, this is simpler than most - simply the angularity squares with the three planets dignified in your Sun and Moon sign getting the 90% minimum score.

Thank you, Jim

I'll need a bit to "process" it...but you've given me several things to think about and compare and contrast.

Just from a cursory glance, it seems to me a positive that Moon, Mercury, Jupiter, and Sun are at the top, since they are all basically positive or neutral. We have to drop from 90, 90, 90, and 87 all the way to 55 before we land on Saturn. (realizing we all _need_ Saturn, but I don't wanna think about needing any more of it) lol

I feel that I have extremely high sexual needs, but notice Mars is extremely low on the list. Perhaps my _need_ in this case relates to something other than the act itself. ie. tied to another planet's needs, which isn't immediately so clear

ODdOnLifeItself wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 10:57 pm ...
I can't get Mike's program to work on my normal astrology laptop that I use. (which will hopefully soon be replaced with a new i7, 16GB machine)
...

Be sure to post on the TMSA sub-forum when you try TMSA on your new laptop. It should work under Windows 11, but has never been tested on that windows version. TMSA was developed under Windows 10. If you need detailed instructions about how to install. feel free to post to the sub-forum or send me a PM.

Mike, I'm running TMSA on Win 11 on one of my computers. It works exactly the same as on 10.

James, on sex needs I wonder if the word for you is HUNGER. Fagan wrote extensively and persuasively that it is Moon, rather than Venus or Mars, that is most expressive of strong sex needs.

This outline is still in testing and development. I do think of you as martial with that Sun-Mars semi-square so close, and the model doesn't currently include octiles. (I had a few charts where that inclusion through everything out of balance so, thus far, I've drawn the line earlier.) Mars would indeed reflect the "power needs" side of sex - pure physicality, need to dominate, etc. - as Venus would show the "affection needs" side - need for companionship, pleasure with others, sex as play. But Moon would reflect the raw hunger, anything rooted in the biological imperative to procreate, instinctual force that compels things to swell and tumesce and need to be fed.

As a reminder, this isn't intended to be a way of measuring which planets are strongest. It's intended to measure specifically which of the fundamental NEEDS categories - driving emotional and instinctual NECESSITY - are strongest. One of the key places this is different: I quickly learned that, as important as they are in defining character, luminary trines and sextiles need to be excluded, presumably because they don't have the inherent nature of DRIVE and necessity.

A separate consideration is whether 2-series aspects should descend to Tier 3, i.e., octiles for this purpose. As mentioned above, I definitely think of James as having strong Mars traits (especially Sun-Mars traits) due to the very close Sun-Mars octile. The question for this particular method is whether this specifically enhances his POWER needs (the biological need for aggression, dominance, controlling others, opposition, independence, and defense) - especially the question of whether this inflates power needs to 100% as his overwhelmingly strongest set of needs.

Glad to hear the confirmation about Windows 11, Jim, thanks.

Sorry I didn't mention that sooner. I've been using it on one computer since probably December.

Though I think it's evident from the edited post at the top but, just in case, I here is a step-by-step method of what I'm currently doing.

I currently calculate a planet's Need Priority (N) this way (steps being taken sequentially):

1. N = angularity strength score
2. If Sun-sign OR Moon-sign has planet dignified and N < 90 then N = 90
3. If Sun-sign AND Moon-sign have planet dignified then N = 100 95
4. If planet is stationary AND N < 75 then N = 75
5. If planet is stationary AND Sun-sign or Moon-sign has planet dignified AND N < 95, then N = 95
6. If planet is conjunct, opposite, or square Sun or Moon (only use one luminary aspect, the larger) AND Sun-sign or Moon-sign has the planet dignified, then N = N+X where X is 5 for a Class 1 aspect, 2 for a Class 2 aspect, 0 for a Class 3 aspect
7. If planet is conjunct, opposite, or square Sun or Moon (only use one luminary aspect, the larger) AND planet is not dignified in either Sun-sign or Moon-sign AND aspect strength (A) > N then N = A
8. If Sun aspects Moon then each counts (both count) that aspect and value as "aspecting a luminary" - i.e., no separate or special or additional rule
9. If N > 100 then N = 100

Once I get the means of calculating stations down pat, then as soon as you are reasonably sure of your procedure (you may have some tweaks yet), quite easy to translate to code.

Re: "James, on sex needs I wonder if the word for you is HUNGER. Fagan wrote extensively and persuasively that it is Moon, rather than Venus or Mars, that is most expressive of strong sex needs."

Yes, I can relate to that phrasing.

When I first got together with my (beautiful) wife, it felt like a most compelling need. One day, after months of "wearing it out" (her phrasing), she stated that it (her being available to be loved upon) wasn't going anywhere and we didn't have to mandatorily prove it twice a day. I thought about it...knew she was right...gave her some space, but it didn't change the desire in the slightest. Maybe it's a hunger (thanks for the word, Jim, in this instance) that can't be sated. If the Moon relates to that particular hunger, then being in Cancer would seem to only intensify it, not abate it.

Re: Procreation

...six children. (that I know of)

Re: "You have Sun octile Mars 04' --it's the strongest aspect in the chart (ecliptically) by orb, and it's an aspect of the Sun..."

Yes, but what surprised me was that, in terms of needs (relative to this thread), that Mars rated so lowly. That's the reason I mentioned it. I can see how powerful Mars is, from normal analysis. I perhaps conflated the difference between the sex act itself (Mars-Venus!!!) and the hunger to have needs met (Moon!) of which sexuality and emotional connectivity definitely are...

Re: Eris

I notice that Eris backwards is "sire"...there seems to be something to that connection.

Thanks for the food for thought... (I was hungry)

Re: "A separate consideration is whether 2-series aspects should descend to Tier 3, i.e., octiles for this purpose."

I would expect that all series 2 aspects out to the 16th harmonic, would have some effect. Relative to each other (2nd -> 4th -> 8th -> 16th), I'm not quite sure how the law of diminishing returns applies...

Certainly, extremely tight octiles seem at least as powerful as not-so-tight squares. More quantitative research probably needs to be done in this area.

Re: Sun-Mars

My Sun sits at the midpoint of Mars-Uranus, so this conversation could have quickly gone down that direction, but I think we've descended the rabbit hole as deep as necessary for understanding on this topic.

Re: "The question for this particular method is whether this specifically enhances his POWER needs (the biological need for aggression, dominance, controlling others, opposition, independence, and defense) - especially the question of whether this inflates power needs to 100% as his overwhelmingly strongest set of needs."

Anyone who hasn't ticked me off would say that I was one of the most mellow, easy-going people they know. When I accepted the managerial job at the post office, a secretary from "upstairs" called me up and said to me that she was surprised that I went into management. She said, "you're always so centered and content within yourself, that I'm surprised you want to take on all the drama that is involved." It really made me think about it and I must say...she was right on some level. Being the boss was good for a bruised ego, but I didn't have the ability to take people that were my friends and not do them right, by MY standards. They had a rock solid case against one of my co-workers for something that he had done. I felt it was a small mistake that didn't warrant the amount of punishment they were wanting to unleash on him, so I gave him private counsel on how to beat it. My reasoning was...in 20 years, I'd give a shit about Mike needing to be punished, but might very well feel happy 20 years later that I took a cool guy and pushed him out of the way of the oncoming busload of discipline that was (unfairly) headed his way.

Re: Dominance

Dominance and submission, what an interesting coin. I feel an incredibly strong drive/need to be right. [and noticing your measurement of Jupiter at "90" ] Dominance to me, sounds more like needing to lord it OVER someone, which is not me at all. On the other hand, if I think someone is misleading, obfuscating the truth, or just plain wrong; I am tireless in statistically and wordsmith-wise "beating them to death with it."

Thanks for all this input.

I am clear that this thread is something experimental - obviously sound in a broad way (i.e., it relies only on things that are individually sound and fits basic sense) without having a sense that it's time to lock it into place. It's biggest vulnerability is in the luminary aspects that, at present, are NOT being counted. I had a few too many cases where including octiles distorted the picture in obvious ways, though I suspect other examples are distorted in the opposite direction (things missed) by not including them, so it probably will come down to scaling them somehow.

I'm not in a rush. I do find this interesting. Maybe the underlying principles are so obvious that formally scaling them isn't necessary, but for complicated charts with over half the planets "strong" in one or another way, it may be clarifying. I've been finding that it's a reasonably good tool for increasing communication in the sense of clarifying, "What are this person's very strongest needs? How do they need to be approached so that interaction fulfills those?"

My list, first by angularity:

99 - Venus
94 - Uranus, Jupiter
81 - Mars
47 - Saturn
16 - Neptune
6 - Sun (Virgo)
5 - Pluto
4 - Moon (Scorpio)
1 - Mercury

Resorted:

99 - Venus
94 - Uranus, Jupiter
94 - Pluto (co. Sun 2°19')
93 - Sun, Moon (mundane sq 1°36')
92 - Mercury (in Virgo co. Sun 5°19')
90 - Mars (Scorpio moon)
47 - Saturn
43 - Neptune (co. Moon 7°24)

I excluded my Sun-Nep sx. 1°49'. Should I have included my mundane Moon-Mercury sq 3°42' in Mercury's calculation?

LeiLei wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 6:54 pm Should I have included my mundane Moon-Mercury sq 3°42' in Mercury's calculation?

Since Mercury aspects both luminaries, only count it once. Since it has a Class 2 aspect and is Sun-sign ruler, it gets a +2 like you gave it.

Besides that, I get very similar results, with the only difference being that your Moon-Sun square is 95%, not 93.

99 - Venus
95 - Moon Sun
94 - Jupiter Uranus Pluto
92 - Mercury
90 - Mars
47 - Saturn
43 - Neptune

Jim Eshelman wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 7:35 pm
Besides that, I get very similar results, with the only difference being that your Moon-Sun square is 95%, not 93.

99 - Venus
95 - Moon Sun
94 - Jupiter Uranus Pluto
92 - Mercury
90 - Mars
47 - Saturn
43 - Neptune

I'm still running 0.4.5 TMSA so maybe that's why there's a discrepancy.

Maybe - or (I'm not sure if this makes a difference) we are using different orbs? There has been some tweaking of the curves lately but, I think, only for the minor angles. Here's a current output using my current settings. (You might as well update to 0.4.7.5, it's in great shape.)

Jim Eshelman wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 7:57 pm Maybe - or (I'm not sure if this makes a difference) we are using different orbs? There has been some tweaking of the curves lately but, I think, only for the minor angles. Here's a current output using my current settings. (You might as well update to 0.4.7.5, it's in great shape.)

Possibly. I can't remember now if I made any adjustments to the orbs in the version I have now. I haven't had internet for about 2 months except through my phone. It will finally be hooked up tomorrow though & I'll download the updated version. Looking forward to it!

An interesting example of this from yesterday that confirms that the above formula is very close to what we need.

I was looking at Joan Jett's chart https://www.solunars.com/viewtopic.php? ... 29&p=38859
The body of the chart is quite obviously accurate: Rising Moon (turns out it's 0°03' from Asc) and especially Moon rising in Capricorn, which is practically her trademark (rebellious rock'n'roller, Blackheart, parent issues, and a long string of Moon in Capricorn public behaviors and self-styling). The other closest angular planet is Uranus on WP. The rising Moon is closely square a non-foreground partile Jupiter-Neptune conjunction for a significant big-show performer, etc.

What I noticed I wasn't noticing was her Virgo Sun. Sure, she looks Virgo enough and I think she has he full set of Virgo traits. (Her Capricorn public face is quite different from her Virgo self, which doesn't shine through. Contrast Virgo-Capricorn John Lennon who, of all the Beatles, had the clearest "bad boy" rocker streak, but was easier to see for his deeply thoughtful brilliance and stunning wordcraft and technical precision. Mercury seems pretty important in Joan's chart not only because she's a Virgo (with Sun moderately conjunct Mercury) but also because the middleground Mercury has close important aspects.

I was willing to write this off as "public face (self as an act) is different from who you really are" and then I ran the Needs Profile. Suddenly it was entirely clear!

100 - Moon
99 - Jupiter Uranus
------------------------
97 - Neptune
92 - Mercury
90 - Mars Saturn
------------------------
72 - Pluto
56 - Venus
31 - Sun

It turns out that, against the entire scope of her chart, the Mercury influence is utterly boring. Though the information needs signaled by Mercury at at 92% of their maximum strength, they are the fifth-strongest set of needs - right in the middle. Moon, Jupiter, and Uranus (the two closely angular planets plus a partile luminary aspect) overwhelm Mercury. In fact, Neptune (which one might call anti-Mercury) is even stronger than Mercury! (Near-partile Moon square.)

So... I found this interesting.

Since I just mentioned John Lennon, another Virgo-Capricorn, in whom other themes played out stronger. I'll work up his Needs Profile in contrast. Of course, the biggest difference in the horoscopes (going along with the gender differences and the impact of those on a public career, especially in the '60s then '70s) is that Joan is primarily lunar while John was primarily solar.

100 - Sun Pluto
98 - Mercury
-------------------
97 - Mars
95 - Neptune
90 - Saturn
81 - Jupiter
-----------------
72 - Uranus
68 - Venus
2 - Moon

The mix is entirely different - and makes all the difference in the world!

And, as long as I'm contrasting, here is Paul McCartney:

100 - Neptune
99 - Sun
95 - Venus
-------------------
92 - Jupiter
90 - Moon Mercury
21 - Mars
-------------------
20 - Pluto
18 - Saturn
7 - Uranus

I've been using this manually for about a year. I'm ready to say that it's the most useful new tactic I've adopted in years, ranking at almost the same importance as sorting aspects by class.

It's only a tactic, of course. It's not a new astrological element, it's just organizing what we already know.

To emphasize an area where I think it might be understood, this is not a ranking of planetary "strength." Strength can be described in multiple ways, and a planet can be strong in some important ways and yet fall very low on this graph.

It is specifically a ranking of the relative intensity of fundamental needs embodied by the planets. That means the factors incorporated that specifically have driving, compelling NEEDY intensity. Some things are left out that would make a planetary theme important in someone's life (e.g., a partile soft aspect to a luminary) but do not have the compelling urgency of expression and satisfaction that would get them on this list.

The one thing that I consider undecided is whether and how to weight in octiles to luminaries. In theory, this should be done; but by ignoring them completely, the method has been holding up well (and adding them in, or at half-strength, has unbalanced the chart with what often appears to be wrong information. Since this is a tactic, not locked in stone, I'm willing to address that newly in the inspecific future.

Here is the "final" formula with which I've been working:

• No planet gets a score higher than 100% by definition.
• ANGULARITY: Start by listing the planet % strength based on angularity. (TMSA factors in both major and minor angles.) This is the minimum score a planet can have.
• LUMINARY SIGNS: A planet ruling or exalted in the Sun-sign or Moon-sign automatically gets at least 90% strength (or 100% [95%] if it is dignified in both luminary signs).
• STATIONS: A stationary planets gets at least a 75% score. - If it is already 90% as a luminary dignitary, it is at least 95%.
• A planet within 3° of Vertex or Antivertex in azimuth gets at least a 75% score. (This formalizes the observation that it stands out primarily when there are no foreground planets.)
• HARD LUMINARY ASPECTS: Each planet conjunct, opposite, or square Sun or Moon gets at least the score of that aspect's strength. - If the planet is a luminary dignitary (already earned 90%), then its minimum score is 95% with a Class 1 luminary aspect or 92% for a Class 2 aspect (no extra points for Class 3).

I will need to experiment with stations, but the rest is dead easy to calculate. For stations I'm leaning towards a daily motion which rounds to 0" or within 24 hours in time either way from the exact station, whichever lasts longer.

I think there is at least a three day window - day of, day before and after. Mercury at 0 is a matter of an hour. When calculating by hand, I used to mark a planet stationary if it didn't change minute of arc from the station which, with Pluto could be a three-week window.

It's all tough, because, like aspect orbs, it's a gradual delta, a gradual change in the speed or rate of change. Where does one draw the line?

Easy enough to make it +- 36 hours perhaps as the default value with the value being user selectable. I think DM rounds to 0" should still apply if it should result in a wider window in some cases. I'll need to check some data and see if it happens enough to be worth bothering with.

I'm going to set out a procedure in psuedocode that I think captures this.

1. Let N = angularity of planet.
2. If N < 90%, set N to 90% if the planet is dignified in either luminary sign, 95% if both.
3. If a planet is stationary, set N to the greater of 75% and N + 5%
4. Consider the closest hard luminary aspect to the planet (if any) and set N the greater of the aspect strength and N + 5% for class 1 or N +2% for class 2.
5. If N > 100%, set N to 100%.
6. N is the needs priority of the planet.

Cool! - Just a couple of adjustments, due to my not explaining myself clearly enough (and one number misread). How about this rewrite? (I'm trying to get as explicit as possible.)

1. Set N = angularity of planet.
2. Set R = the number of luminary signs where the planet is dignified (values 0, 1, or 2).
3. Set S = 1 if planet is stationary.
4. If R = 2 [and N < 95], set N = 100 [95%].
5. If R = 1 and N < 90, set N = 90.
6. If S = 1 and N < 75, set N = 75. However, if S = 1 and R > 0 and N < 95, set N = 95.
7. For any luminary conjunction, opposition, or square, set N the greater of: N; or aspect score; or 95% if R > 0 and aspect is Class 1; or 92% if R > 0 and aspect is Class 2. {NB. You could first identify the highest scoring qualifying luminary aspect as you suggested, or just brute force it through with what I just wrote if that's faster.}
8. If N > 100%, set N = 100%.
9. N is the needs priority of the planet.

I believe this is correct. I went over it several times and might still have missed a subtlety. Please read carefully and critique

Another question in my mind for TMSA purposes: Should these be labelled as planet labels or as needs labels? I think astrologers generally want them as planets EXCEPT that then gives the misleading idea that this is a general "planetary strength" scale (which it isn't quite). Also, consumers of astrology (in contrast to astrologers) would find the needs language more interesting and helpful.

I suppose it should have planet labels (is it too much to ask for a user toggle?) but I at least wanted to give one example. With planet labels, Mike's looks like this:

NEEDS HIERARCHY
100% - Mercury
98% - Venus Mars
92% - Neptune
90% - Sun Pluto
77% - Saturn
30% - Uranus
14% - Jupiter
4% - Moon

With needs labels, Mike's looks like this:

NEEDS HIERARCHY
100% - Information
98% - Affection, Power
92% - Reality-forging
90% - Individuation, Authenticity-isolation
77% - Material-survival
30% - Freedom-renewal
14% - Ambition
4% - Response-adaptation

Mine looks like this in the two variations:

NEEDS HIERARCHY
97% - Moon
90% - Mercury Uranus
60% - Sun
46% - Neptune
45% - Mars
36% - Jupiter
23% - Saturn
0% - Venus Pluto

NEEDS HIERARCHY
97% - Response-adaptation
90% - Information, Freedom-renewal
60% - Individuation
46% - Reality-forging
45% - Power
36% - Ambition
23% - Material-survival
0% - Affection & Authenticity-isolation

Finally, just as a teaser: One cool thing about having these programmed is that as soon as you calculate a locality chart, the numbers are regenerated for the new location. - However, I haven't yet sorted out what that really means. I think the correct way to read it is the basic principle that you don't lose primary principles from the birthplace but you gain new things. - Initially, I think the astrologer should work that out for themselves, but if there is ever a separate report contrasting two locations (fantasizing down the road: itemizing such things as which mundane aspects are gained or lost, which parans are gained and lost, same with angular planets), then the correct way is probably to take the greater score of a planet for birthplace vs. a new location. Here are mine for (1) birthplace, (2) current residence, and (3) "best score" between the two:

NEEDS HIERARCHY [birthplace]
97% - Moon
90% - Mercury Uranus
60% - Sun
46% - Neptune
45% - Mars
36% - Jupiter
23% - Saturn
0% - Venus Pluto

NEEDS HIERARCHY [residence]
100% - Venus Pluto
90% - Mercury Uranus
53% - Moon
41% - Saturn
39% - Mars
20% - Neptune
8% - Sun
0% - Jupiter

NEEDS HIERARCHY [combined: higher score]
100% - Venus Pluto
97% - Moon
90% - Mercury Uranus
60% - Sun
46% - Neptune
45% - Mars
41% - Saturn
36% - Jupiter

I'm currently thinking of a listing after the Cosmic State portion. As a separate listing, plenty of space for both the planet and the need keyword. For angularity "expressiveness" is a good word for what the % means, for aspects "strength", for needs, I'm leaning towards "intensity" which to me seems to capture a bit of both concepts.

A thought about luminary aspects: imagine Moon partile trine to Venus and Mars square to Moon at about 2 degrees (assuming angularity, dignity, and station were comparable) I submit the the Venus need is stronger (closer orb) but less intense than the Mars need, and the individual will be more driven to fulfill their Mars need, to the point that we consider the square in the final need score and disregard the trine.