Minor Square aspects

[Soft Alpaca]

I have three 135 degree aspects that i cam reacal in my chart. Moon-Jupiter, Jupiter-Pluto, and Mercury-Saturn. My Jupiter is the ruling planet of My Sun, and My Moon is in Leo. My Jupiter is also angular. Yet I don't relate to it nearly as much as Saturn or even Pluto for that matter. Jupiter-Pluto kind of makes sense to me, however Jupiter-Moon and Saturn-Mercury both seem iffy. So I'm asking is it possible that minor square aspects don't play significant roles in my natal chart? Jupiter aspects Mars and Mercury (i can understand these aspects) as well as Saturn aspecting Uranus (and the Sun loosely, also Pluto through the Moon). Maybe these aspects are lesser in strength than even trines and sextiles? I note that even though it is just above the 5 degree mark the Sun-Moon-Saturn Cosmic trine in my chart is very noticeable. However my angular Jupiter even in consideration with its Moon, Mars, and Mercury aspects is not as apparent.

[Jim Eshelman]

So I'm asking is it possible that minor square aspects don't play significant roles in my natal chart?

I take it you are using "minor square" as your own term for semi-square and sesqui-square, yes?

These don't have the vitality or importance as conjunctions, oppositions, and squares, but, when adequately close, they are quite strong, and certainly partake of the dynamic "hard aspect" quality. Your Moon-Jupiter is extremely close (0°06'), but would be easy to lose track of in all of the other abundant, powerful Jupiter presence in your chart. Mercury-Saturn is wider, but still quite decent at 1°21'. Jupiter-Pluto involves two outer planets, so let's not get lost in that right now (but it's closer than the Mercury-Saturn).

Maybe these aspects are lesser in strength than even trines and sextiles?

That's debatable depending on what you mean by "strong." They are "lesser" in that they have tighter, tinier orbs, but their nature is more dynamic - so I might agree they are quantitatively lesser, but they don't have the passive, locked-down quality of trines and sextiles - they're dynamic and vital like squares.

I don't remember... have you studied the "Kid Gloves" article on Jupiter to which I once referred you?

[Soft Alpaca]

I reread a little of it (the attachment about it being benefic ). It sounds like the planet of conformity and wanting to belong (wanting in general), you compare its style of expansion to eating. I would say that I do not want to belong more than the next person, I'm having trouble comprehending Jupiter, sure I like to learn and want to be a part of a "family", but these things are shallow and dull. I'm actually rather frustrated when reading about Jupiter, it makes me bored, and is so unrelatable. In EVERY group once been in, I don't completely belong, and I'm ok with that because it makes it easy for me to come and go as I wish. Also whatever Jupiter eats Jim, will inevitably come out as shit. Maybe my problem with not relating to my Sun sign stems from a deep disconetion with its ruling planet...

[Soft Alpaca]

Went back to kid gloves and reread what a Jupiter heavy person would ideally be like. It made my heart sink Jim. How can anybody be like that? The conformity the loss of loving instead in place of admiration is sickening, don't take this the wrong way but I would honestly rather be dead. I don't have these luxuries and sophistication in life, I don't value these falisites.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

I have Jupiter (and the Sun) angular, and I don't relate to Bradley's view of Jupiter. I agree there's a childish greed thing in there, but I think there's a lot more to Jupiter than just that. I think he took the stages of growth scheme too far.
Meeting me, people tend to think I'm conventional. I let them. It's good cover. I'm areligious, and whether it's Fundamentalist Christian or candles and crystals or whatever, I'd really rather not hear about it.
I'm usually an outsider in any group, including family. I'm also very very much an introvert. I'd rather be home with the cat.

[Soft Alpaca]

I've never seemed conventional no matter how hard I would try id still not blend in. I actually got my friends to read Saggitarius and angular Jupiter (amongst other jovial aspects in my chart) most of them just laughed. My grandma says that I can come across as cocky but thats because I have prior experiences and a general low tolerance for ignorant people, not because I'm better then them or because i know more.

However it's when the classy and luxurious (and optimistic) traits show up in Saggitarius/Jupiter that I feel totally lost. When I get to the point I have a house I probably will use candles to light it. I'm just as content sleeping on the floor as I am on a couch or a bed. I probably won't own a TV or hardly any furniture and I'm just fine with that. My ideal house, although big, would be an old mansion in the woods away from everyone else, one that creeks and is covered in cobwebs and dust. I'm not used to or comfortable with this formality and fancy stuff, it's overrated.

[Avshalom Binyamin]

I dunno, but a big old candlelit house is pretty fancy and formal in my book, cobwebs or no.

[Soft Alpaca]

Yes cobwebs. Only dead folks are invited to the party. I'm reading about Serpens Constellation my Sun, Mercury Venus are in it (Pluto and Chiron are in Ophicious). I have one aspect to a fixed star in Sag constellation, 3 in Serpens (4 if you count 1.5 orb for fixed stars). It colors my chart seemingly more than Saggitarius. (Although they probably work in tandem).

Sorry I got sidetracked...

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

I'm reading about Serpens Constellation my Sun, Mercury Venus are in it (Pluto and Chiron are in Ophicious). I have one aspect to a fixed star in Sag constellation, 3 in Serpens (4 if you count 1.5 orb for fixed stars). It colors my chart seemingly more than Saggitarius. (Although they probably work in tandem).

The zodiac is twelve equal sections of the earth's actual orbit around the Sun. The names are of the constellation covering most of the line of the orbit in that section, or with the most easily recognized pattern of stars if there's more than one choice. We can't add more sections. We also can't add astroids in order to make our charts more to our liking.
There is no such thing as the sign of Ophiuchus. You do know that whole idea was an attempt by an astronomer to discredit the entire subject of astrology, and thereby get some publicity and funding because his budget was being cut.

[Soft Alpaca]

That's why I said constellation not sign.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Signs are tropical astrology. Constellations are Sidereal astrology. There are astronomical constellations as well, but they are not the same thing. Bradley and Fagin used the term constellation instead of sign so people wouldn't conflate the two.

Jim did we give up the use of constellation instead of sign for Lent or something?

[Jim Eshelman]

I use both - one formally, one casually. - The correct term for constellations other than the 12 is "extrazodiacal constellations," though I understand why someone might drop the first word.

[Soft Alpaca]

Back on topic I've looked at some other charts where minor square aspects are at play, being the only aspect to a planet. These individuals related more to the unaspected planet descriptions than too the minor squares.

[Jim Eshelman]

I assume that "minor square" is a term you've made up for semi-square and sesqui-square?

[Soft Alpaca]

I didn't make it up Jim. They are both minor aspects and are of the square variety.

However yes I meant semi and sesqui squares

[Jim Eshelman]

Thanks. And yeah, you made it upo

If you want a single word for both, call them octiles.

BTW, if one of these is the only aspect in play for a planet, we would expect it to act like it's "unaspected," as you observed. The definition of "unaspected" (the definitions within which the studies of "unaspected planets" have been performed) are "no conjunctions, oppositions, squares, trines, or sextiles within 5°." A planet could have nine octiles and still fit that definition of "unaspected," even with all nine aspects being quite obviously expressive in the character.

[Soft Alpaca]

Ok Jim that's something I did not know, thanks.

[Jim Eshelman]

Ok Jim that's something I did not know, thanks.

It's in the discussion in the top posts on the Unaspected thread.