REPORT: Relative Value of Canlunars

[Jim Eshelman]

I undertook a project to document the relative importance of Canlunar ingresses, especially in comparison to the Cansolar's relative importance among solar ingresses. This post reports my findings and conclusions.

REVIEW OF CANSOLAR IMPORTANCE
The Cansolar actually has a standing and import similar to that of the Capsolar, earning it the nickname, "Deputy Master Chart of the Year." Its transits and quotidians are operative throughout the year, and its portents carry, at least to a limited extent, throughout a 12-month period and not simply for the three or six months immediately following its inception. However, it is clearly secondary, in both strength and importance, to the Capsolar. In practice, the best use of the Cansolar is to consult it when the Capsolar is dormant or similarly inexpressive.

Here are comparative numbers on relative effectiveness of the Capsolar and Cansolar under different circumstances. Throughout all that follows, an ingress is termed "satisfactory" or "sufficient" it its rating is a +1 (satisfactory, "good") or +2 (very satisfactory, "great"). An ingress is termed "effective" if it attains a +1 or better score. The current numbers are based on the 191 events catalogued in Sidereal Mundane Astrology, 5th Edition.

By itself, the Capsolar is 88% effective as a one-year chart. As its period of influence is narrowed, with fewer secondary solar ingresses overlaying it, this effectiveness increases. As a half-year chart, it is 91% effective. As a quarter-year chart, it is 92% effective.

As a one-year chart, the Cansolar is 82% effective. As a half-year chart, this increases to 89% effective (about the same level of effectiveness a Capsolar shows as a one-year chart). As a quarter-year chart, it reaches 92% effective, like the Capsolar.

Of the 191 events studied, 95 occurred with Sun in the first half of the zodiac, from Capricorn through Gemini (the first six months after a new Capsolar). In 35 of these, the Capsolar was dormant or had nothing relevant to say (score: 0). Of these 35 events, the Cansolar was dormant four times. Of the 31 remaining “Capsolar-silent” events, the Cansolar is 94% effective, a significant improvement over the poor 75% effectiveness it shows for all events in the first six months of the Sidereal year independent of Capsolar dormancy. This 94% effectiveness is also better than the Cansolar’s score for its own six months (89%).

This demonstrates that the Cansolar operates at a very high level of effectiveness even six-to-twelve months after its inception, provided the Capsolar has noting to say. Under these conditions, the Cansolar is the loudest "voice" among solar ingresses.

ANALYZING THE CANLUNAR
If we apply the same sort of analysis to the Canlunar, we do not get the same result. Its significance does not approach a level that might earn it the title, "Deputy Master Chart of the Month." It does improve performance in the absence of an expressive Caplunar, but only minimally, and perhaps no more than any other weekly lunar ingress expressing itself by flowing through the period of a dormant successor ingress.

As a one-month chart, the Caplunar is 89% effective. As a half-month chart, it is 90% effective. As a one-week chart, it is 91% effective.

As a one-month chart, the Canlunar is only 80% effective. As a half-month chart, this increases to 90% effective (about the same level of effectiveness a Caplunar shows as a one-month chart). As a one-week chart, it is 92% effective. The gap between its effectiveness as a one-month chart and a fortnight or weekly chart is sizeable.

Of the 191 events studied, 105 occurred with Moon in the first half of the zodiac, from Capricorn through Gemini (the first two weeks after a new Caplunar). In 27 of these, the Caplunar was dormant or had nothing relevant to say (score: 0). Of these 27 events, the Canlunar was dormant ten times. Of the 17 remaining “Caplunar-silent” events, the Canlunar is only 82% effective, about the same as for all events in the first half of the lunar month, and distinctly less effective than the Caplunar in general or the Canlunar for its own fortnight or week.

While this 82% figure is higher than if no effect were observable from the Canlunar, it is far below any other performance of lunar ingresses under any other studied conditions (in fact, lower than any mundane technique that we deem effective and usable). Best practice says that we should not rely on the Canlunar except in its own fortnight and quarter, or when acting through simple flow-through due to the dormancy of successor ingresses.

[Jim Eshelman]

So Caplunars would go into the stack of charts to look at when narrowing things down, but Canlunars, Arilunars and Liblunars are more efficently left till after you have a time narrowed down. Do I have that right?

Are you talking about predictively or analytically?

Analytically (when we already know an event), the usual procedure is to do the Caplunar, then (if it's in the second half of the month) the Canlunar, then the ingress of the week. (I had begun to doubt BTW whether the Canlunar really works as a fortnight chart, rather than simply as a one-week chart. The above analysis drives me to say yes, it does, because its effectiveness as a fortnight chart and a week chart are essentially the same.)

Predictively, I think we have to look at every single weekly chart to see the most likely week. There is no requirement that an event show in the Caplunar. To throw some real numbers out, of 191 events, let's leave out those occurring in the first week of the month (when the Caplunar was "chart of the week"). This leaves 144 events. Drop the events where the Caplunar was dormant (since it acts like it isn't even there, we would be wrong to count those events), and we have 116 samples left. If these 116 sample events, the Caplunar said nothing, or produced a bad or very bad result (-1 or -2 score) 14 times. Of these 14 times that the Caplunar was silent or wrong, the chart of the week was +1 or +2 all but once (93% of the time). Conclusion: We don't need the Caplunar to show the event.

Here is the metaphor that continues to serve me as I sort through relative strengths of these techniques. Among the lunar ingresses, the Caplunar has the loudest voice, the Canlunar the next loudest voice, and the Arilunar and Liblunar the weakest voices. Singing in a chorus, the Caplunar would always drown out all the others but with the Canlunar voice showing through a bit. However, during each week, the Chart of the Week steps up to the microphone and is obviously in the lead.

"only" 80% effective. "only" 82% effective.
I've had medical proceedures with lesser odds of an effective outcome.

Yes. In the past, when I first worked up the analyses that form Chapter 26 of the recent editions of SMA, my head was spinning at these numbers. All of the main techniques, those we can rely on, are 85% or up (i.e., they round to 90% to the nearest 10%). The lunar ingress serving as Chart of the Week is 94% effective. The CapQ (backed up, when it is silent, by a pretty specific layering system) is 99% effective - stunning! So, yeah, I appreciate the head-scratching at "only 80%," but that's so low that, at the very least, we don't have to rely on it and risk 20% error.

You might want to leisurely read Chapter 26 of SMA. A lot of useful (perspective) stuff falls out of the numbers. I let myself be heavily guided by what these reflect.

[Jim Eshelman]

I was speaking predictively.

This leaves 144 events. Drop the events where the Caplunar was dormant (since it acts like it isn't even there, we would be wrong to count those events), and we have 116 samples left. If these 116 sample events, the Caplunar said nothing, or produced a bad or very bad result (-1 or -2 score) 14 times. Of these 14 times that the Caplunar was silent or wrong, the chart of the week was +1 or +2 all but once (93% of the time). Conclusion: We don't need the Caplunar to show the event.

I am having trouble following your reasoning here. If the Caplunar said nothing or produced a bad result only 14 times out of 116 samples, why bother with the other lunars? Especially since the CapQ is so strong. Why not just jump to the CapQ. (I'll go re-read Chapter 26 in case you said the CapQ works best narrowed down using the Lunars, but I don't think you did.)

I appreciate the head-scratching at "only 80%," but that's so low that, at the very least, we don't have to rely on it and risk 20% error.

That wasn't head-scratching. That was "geeze, these techniques are so accurate we can't even be bothered to use a technique that has only an 80% success rate!"
That's so cool.

[Jim Eshelman]

This leaves 144 events. Drop the events where the Caplunar was dormant (since it acts like it isn't even there, we would be wrong to count those events), and we have 116 samples left. If these 116 sample events, the Caplunar said nothing, or produced a bad or very bad result (-1 or -2 score) 14 times. Of these 14 times that the Caplunar was silent or wrong, the chart of the week was +1 or +2 all but once (93% of the time). Conclusion: We don't need the Caplunar to show the event.

I am having trouble following your reasoning here. If the Caplunar said nothing or produced a bad result only 14 times out of 116 samples, why bother with the other lunars? Especially since the CapQ is so strong. Why not just jump to the CapQ.

The weekly lunars are the second most accurate technique we have. If you leave out the daily timing methods, nothing in the whole tool kit matches them.

One of the small reports I published is called The Master Charts. I wanted to test whether we could get away with only using the Master Charts of the year and month - Capsolar and Caplunar - and then timing the day with the CapQ. We can't, it leaves an enormous amount out. (By the way, I was using a very low threshold of predictability, simply the fact that something got at least a +1 score in hindsight.) As a next layer, I wanted to see if we could use this if it if we let a second-tier method "back up" the Master Chart, viz., use the Capsolar unless it was dormant, then use the Cansolar; use the Caplunar unless it was dormant, then use the weekly lunar; use the CapQ unless dormant, then back it up with the CanQ and transits shown previously to work.

I was disappointed with the results, which were just at 76% (and, as mentioned, with that, I wasn't sure "predictable" really applied, only that a sufficient satisfaction had been found by the charts in hindsight - but this was at least a place to start).

In that somewhat early study, out of 150 events, 114 met the low "predictable" threshold I'd set. That's 76%, and I'm used to 90% or better.

Go through the examples in SMA, and you

For prediction, though, the biggest breakthrough (and what I think will be most useful going forward) is the middle-term timing approach I recently published here http://www.solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=4084
In that study, I was specifically looking for the method to most efficiently find what part of the year something would occur, and then narrow it further from there. (We can get the macro, or whole year, picture pretty well, and the micro, of daily timing, pretty well; I wanted an efficient way to bridge from long-term to daily, and the methods identified showed a narrow set of factors that provide this 97% of the time. I'm going to have to rewrite SMA again, to incorporate this finding. I've started calling these middle-range techniques The Bridge.)

[Jim Eshelman]

Let me answer your question a totally different way.

By themselves, the Caplunars (in the current set of 191 events) have a +1 score or better 89% of the time. (Most of that is +2, "great" rather than "good": 68% +2, 21% +1.) But 94% of the time, the weekly lunars alone are at the same level of accuracy. That 5% seems a sizeable difference. Plus, when you look at the actual charts (rather than just a list of numbers reflecting my sense of whether they were "great," "good," or worse), you see an interplay, with the weekly charts sometimes adding far more vivid descriptors. If nothing else, these charts are just too amazing for me to be willing to miss them.

I am convinced that mundane astrology gives us a possibility that we will never have in natal astrology: to come close to 100% predictability. This is attainable, I think, because we are falling back to mass, collective responses where we are no longer reliant on or beholden to the individual choices any person makes, so we reduce the factors enormously. Our biggest limitations are going to be the need to watch individual areas - the effects are highly localized - and we don't yet have the right computer tools to dynamically scan the whole united states with a dozen layers of moving filters, bringing hundreds of different potential factors in and out of activity, to isolate location as well as time, but we could pull off something close if we had enough people watching enough locales closely.

What I'm trying to do with this is to match three things: location, time, and nature of event. I believe we are very, very close to being able to say that any major, masses-affecting event occurring at a specific time and place will have such-and-so a quality, and we right more than 95% of the time. (This still doesn't cross the line to predicting the event itself, but gets us close.)

Of 191 events in the current study set, the Caplunar was dormant 41 times. Procedure says we treat this simply as if the Caplunar never existed, with no judgment on it meaning anything. ("No message is no message.") In 133 of the remaining 150 events, the Caplunar had a score of +1 or +2, or 89%. BTW in 6 events it was non-dormant but said nothing useful, or said contradictory things (score 0).

Of the 133 times the Caplunar was "correct," the Chart of the Week (weekly lunar ingress) was dormant six times - let's leave those out. Of the remaining 127 charts, the Week Chart was accurate 103 times, or 81% of the rest, which isn't all that great. I wanted to point out, though, that in three cases where the Caplunar was a sterling +2, the Week Chart was actually wrong (-1 or-2).

But let's flip this around the other way.

Of 191 events in the current study set, the Week Chart was dormant 44 times (so we exclude them). In 137 of the remaining 147 events, or 93%, the Week Chart had a score of +1 or +2. (In 4 events it was non-dormant but said nothing useful, had score 0.) Of the 137 times the Week Chart was "correct," the Caplunar was dormant 21 times - let's leave those out. Of the remaining 116 charts, the Caplunar was accurate 103 times, or 75% of the rest, which isn't all that great. In nine cases where the Week Chart was a correct (most of these being +2), the Week Chart was actually wrong (-1 or-2).

I look at these last two big paragraphs, go round and round them, and can't find a way to justify doing away with either layer. Certainly not the Week Charts - if we had to pick just one of the two, we'd have to go with them because they're better. But the two interact.

Let me find a sterling couple of examples from the middle range timing and post them here.

[Jim Eshelman]

Example #1 of "bridge work" (as Steve jokingly called this bridging technique).

Mt. Vesuvius erupts, August 24, 79
The Capsolar was great. (The details don't really matter for this study. I'll be terse where I know you can look up the details if interested.)

The part of the year is narrowed as follows: Transiting Neptune squares a Capsolar angle 4/13-11/3 (much of the year). Transiting Uranus conjoins Capsolar Moon 8/8-29. These overlap in the narrow Uranus period and give us August 8-29 as a narrow window when we also have a distinct link to the location. The current quarterly solar ingress (Cansolar) is completely compatible with the event.

Caplunar July 29 is pretty uninvolved. Narrow to the August 11 Canlunar which is good. Narrow further to the August 18 Liblunar, which is weak but expresses the same type of event. We're down to the week beginning August 18.

Within this, CapQ brings transiting Mars to the Ascendant the day of the eruption.


Example #2 Mt. Pelee Erupts May 8, 1902

The Capsolar is great. To narrow the time field, we find transiting Saturn on a Capsolar angle 5/1-14, and Mars crossing another Capsolar angle 5/8-13. We have our window of May 8-13. The quarterly solar ingress effectively in force (Capsolar) is compatible with the event.

The Caplunar is a killer with Saturn 3' from an angle and wider Moon and Mars. The Arilunar (two days before the eruption) has closely angular Mars and Sun, and a foreground Mars-Saturn square. Our window remains May 8-13.

Transiting Mars, which served the midrange timing, also provides the daily timing. It moved into orb of Capsolar IC the day of the event.

[Jim Eshelman]

Example #3 Tohoku Earthquake Mar 11 2011

This is a more complicated example where the success of some charts and failure of others help narrow the event.

The Capsolar was great.

Transiting Neptune squares Capsolar Moon or progressed Capsolar Moon (in overlapping periods) 1/16 to 4/3 (just under three months). This would have been nice narrowing all by itself, but we also got transiting Saturn crossing a Cansolar angle 2/12 to 4/16, which also localizes the event (unlike the Neptune transit). This gives us a six-week event window of February 16 to April 3.

The March 1 Caplunar is actually very poor, and gets a -2. (I interpret that it displaced the event to a week later). The Arilunar March 8, though, brings Neptune and Mars to the angles. We have a window of the week beginning March 8.

Daily timing got complicated. It was unsatisfying (poor) for the epicenter. However, in Tokyo, where they had to deal the most with the event, Pluto was exactly on a CapQ angle.


Example #4 Benghazi U.S. Consulate Attack Sep 11 2012

I like this example because it shows how, no matter how good some charts are, the event isn't usually going to ripen unless they occur in the bridge-identified event window.

The Capsolar had mixed messages and gave no single clear message other than political-economic instability. The very good Cansolar had clearer messages.

Then, transiting Pluto conjoined a Cansolar angle 8.8-10/27. Transiting Uranus squares another Cansolar angle 9/8-3/9. Their overlap shows September 8 to October 27 as the event window when both are optimally active.

Similarly, CapQ Moon squares ingress and progressed Sun 8/14-10/26. Besides indicating fire, it is a crisis point that falls right atop our expected Uranus-Pluto event, so we factor it in and narrow our event window to September 8 to October 26.

The Cansolar (ingress of the quarter) is dramatic and harsh. The Libsolar didn't have a clear message (its main feature was angular Sun), so it isn't clear whether there is a break-over in mid-October - I'm not sure we can narrow the event window any further.

Then come the lunar ingresses. The August 28 Caplunar is brutal and exact. However, it occurs 11 days before our event window opens on September 8. (It could have snuck in at the very end.) Then, less than three hours before the attack, Moon entered Cancer, with Uranus-Pluto exactly angular (in this case, matching the Bridge factors). A precise Canlunar within a brutal Caplunar overlapped the event window.

The only daily timing event surprised me at first, until I remembered I was looking at things from the point of view of the citizens of Benghazi: CapQ puts Jupiter right on the angle. (They won.)


Example #4-B Benghazi U.S. Consulate Attack from Washington, DC

The narrowing effect is different (after finding similar but different event window symbolism that pointed to roughly the same time). The Caplunar is very good, with Mars closely angular. September 4 is an Arilunar with Pluto precisely angular. The Canlunar is dormant, leaving the field to the Pluto Arilunar within the Mars Caplunar. (The live Arilunar and dormant Pluto give us a two-week window beginning September 4.)

On the day, the CapQ shows nothing, so we cut to the CanQ, which puts transiting Mars (and, more fully, Venus-Mars) on the angles.

[Jim Eshelman]

Example #5 Soma coalmine disaster May 14 2014

Finally, an event that shows why we sometimes see Jupiter randomly present in horrible events that don't particularly have secondary Jupiter symbolism obvious. In this case, it was unavoidable. (Increasingly, what I see is that Jupiter won't stop bad things from happening, but it will shift them to earlier or later if there is an opportunity.)

For this event, the Capsolar was very good. The bridge is complicated.

1. Transiting Pluto opposes Capsolar Moon 2/23-6/7.
2. Progressed Capsolar (CapQ) Moon squares Mars 4/5-6/10. (Window narrowed to 4/5-6/7.)
3. Transiting Uranus squares Capsolar Moon 4/10-5/18. (Window narrowed to 4/10-5/18.)
4. Transiting Mars squares Capsolar Ascendant, simultaneously opposing Capsolar Uranus, 5/3-6/6. The overlap window of all these transits is May 3-18.
5. Transiting Jupiter conjoins CapQ Moon 5/12-15. There is little time in the window that does not have this Jupiter transit, though we have to wonder whether dates before May 12 might not be a better definition. We have to look at the other charts of the time to see if they "allow" this. (The Arisolar, which is the Quarter Chart, is completely compatible with what we are seeing so far.)

In the April 21 Caplunar, Neptune is 0°00' from square Ascendant for the location of the mine. The May 12 Liblunar has Saturn exactly angular. Our event is, therefore, targeted to occur in the week beginning May 12 (which explains why we are stuck with the Jupiter above).

Daily timing emphasizes Sun in two different ways, which apparently refers to the fire (which was the real core of this event).