Vertex - mundane calculations

[Jim Eshelman]

(Originally posted on the old site 9/28/2012, 4:06 AM, years before I came back to work this out more thoroughly.)

A few weeks ago, somebody asked me (in some thread or another) how to calculate when a planet crosses the Vertex-Antivertex mundanely, rather than simply measured in ecliptical longitude. I said I didn't know.

Tonight I realized how to do this in a forehead-slapping Doh! moment. It's super-easy with a chart calculation tool such as Solar Fire.

"Mundane crossing" of the Vertex axis means that the planet is on the great circle called the Prime Vertical. This happens when the planet's azimuth is 90° (east) or 270° (west).

Doh!

Now, I don't at all know that we should be calculating this mundanely. (None of us knows that since, until now, nobody had said how to do it.) But now we can start watching.

[Jim Eshelman]

Thank you Jim

[Jim Eshelman]

I came across a striking example - in my own chart, of all places! - to support my growing certainty that conjunctions and oppositions to the Vertex should be taken only mundanely, like other angles - measured in azimuth.

I consider Bryce Canyon in Utah to be the single most beautiful place on Earth I've ever seen. It draws me back with its beauty, majesty, and amazement. Relocating my chart to Bryce Canyon, there is a perfectly fine local contact of the Vertex to Jupiter and, if you step outside a partile orb, with Uranus. Here are the positions in longitude:

3°20' Can - Uranus
3°37' Can - Jupiter
4°22' Can - Antivertex

Fine enough. No serious objection other than that this sufficient hit isn't "anything special" of the sort that would mark out that exact spot - compared to all the area around it - as singularly unique.

However, view these in azimuth:

89°52' Uranus
90°00' Antivertex
90°09' Jupiter

Uranus is 08' on one side, Jupiter 09' on the other side: The prime vertical is the exact midpoint of Jupiter and Uranus to the minute! (Careful calculation for the front gate of the part gives an orb of 0°00'44".)

[Soft Alpaca]

I would assume this only has effect in events and moments (not the natal).Its a rather intresting find either way!

[Jim Eshelman]

I would assume this only has effect in events and moments (not the natal).Its a rather intresting find either way!

Actually, the other way around. The importance of the Vertex in return charts and transits is, for example, just does't hold up, though the effect in the natal chart, while weak (compared to other things we normally trust), is pretty consistently demonstrable.

[Soft Alpaca]

Ok intresting. I dont have access to my mudoscope does anything interesting appear in my chart (7:32 birth time if that's the one we recorded I don't remember).

As for the transits, would a transiting planet aspecting a natal planet partile to the vertex be more likely to function at an elevated energy level?

[Jim Eshelman]

As for the transits, would a transiting planet aspecting a natal planet partile to the vertex be more likely to function at an elevated energy level?

At 7:32 AM (instead of the 7:29 I had stored for you), Uranus is azimuth 90°08', i.e., 0°08' of Antivertex. I would expect this to be a strong expression in you of which you tend to be unconscious, i.e., it's not normally obvious to you how much you disrupt and displace things in your environment.

I wouldn't credit "energy" to the Vertex. Horizon and meridian confer that kind of expressiveness and high energy. The Vertex gives expression, but it has an inherent unconsciousness about it.

[Soft Alpaca]

Unconsciously disrupts and displaces... great. Thanks Jim. It would make sense that I've missed this in my own chart, perhaps this will settle all qualms I had with my birth chart time. Interestingly enough Uranus-Venus midpoints my Sun and Uranus I believe aspects my Sun in the mundo (I've taken these with a grain of salt). Also could this unconsciously Uranus expression contribute to my psychic/ inter-cosmic tendencies(?).

I think the whole azmuith process just put a good perspective in my kind too. Knowing that Uranus is even more partile to an angle than my Sun, albeit these angles doing slightly diffrent things it's very intresting! Just feel kind of embarrassed that I over looked it .

[Jim Eshelman]

No need to feel embarrassed, I think. The nature of unconsciousness is to be unconscious

Here's the complex and technical relationship I think you're trying to describe:

For a 7:32 AM birth time, Sun is 0°42' below Asc in altitude (or 0°48' in PV longitude). Jupiter is 2°52' past IC in azimuth (or 3°14' in PV longitude). Uranus is 0°08' past Antivertex in azimuth or 0°07' in PV amplitude.

Now, this is technical... it may not be obvious why the math is this way... but here goes.

We take the Sun-Jupiter square in PV longitude. The orb of this mundane square is 3°34', which is a little larger than we normally take for this class of aspect, but you have Sun in Sagittarius anyway.

We take Sun-Uranus by comparing Sun's altitude to Uranus' PV amplitude. One is 0°42' before, the other is 0°07', so the orb is about 0°49', quite close for this birth time.

We take Jupiter-Uranus in azimuth. Uranus us 0°08' past, Jupiter is 2°52' past, so they are in PVP square within 2°44'.

[Soft Alpaca]

Well that just kind of blew a hole in my chart Jim! The math makes sense if I think about the squares as straight tethers on a three demitional field.

Feels kind of cool that this azimuth calculating discovery opened the doors to this. I just don't know how to interpret the energy (does it read kind of like Uranus in the IC would read?). In terms if the Sun-Uranus [which of course sticks out, how should I interpret that?

[Jim Eshelman]

Feels kind of cool that this azimuth calculating discovery opened the doors to this. I just don't know how to interpret the energy (does it read kind of like Uranus in the IC would read?).

More like Uranus to Asc except with the inherent unconsciousness. One would expect it to express naturally from you, with everyone else noticing it and you remaining oblivious to it.

In terms if the Sun-Uranus [which of course sticks out, how should I interpret that?

My standard interpretation is: Go their own way, unapologetically following their own paths & persuaded that they’re a “special case.” Resourceful, stimulating, but easily bored (in need of frequent stimulation). Love of freedom: bow to no authority but themselves. Progressive, future-oriented, uninhibited by convention. Adept at creative problem solving. Self-perspective usually founded in objectivity.

[Soft Alpaca]

Intresting again thanks! I'll read up on all of this further of course.

Side note this also ties together the "scorpio" bow I was looking for but couldnt find. Having a deep rooted aggression from my Mars/sign and (+moon) aspects, and having an angular Uranus together make my psyche run deeply with Mars/Uranus themes that they establish in scorpio (and the unconscious nature of Uranus in my chart kept me from putting it together). I wasn't ever a Scorpio of course, I just have similar thematics emerge in my chart.

[Jim Eshelman]

It helps, of course, to have a settled birth time, and there has been such uncertainty about yours. Some of these things are only visible with a right time to within a very few minutes.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

"Mundane crossing" of the Vertex axis means that the planet is on the great circle called the Prime Vertical. This happens when the planet's azimuth is 90° (east) or 270° (west).

So, I have some follow-up questions in order to help me clarify my thoughts on your thinking about “Mundane crossing” of planets to the Vertex, regardless the type of “crossing” to a Vertex, and regardless the type of chart one was analyzing. For example:

When I compute the CapQ for Tokyo on March 10th 1945 (CapQ link below), and see that CapQ Uranus is 270,04 in Azi using Solar Fire, which if I understand means Uranus is mundanely partile cnj CapQ Vertex---Does this mean that in certain other cases with CapQ charts when our eyes see a partile cnj of a CapQ planet with the CapQ Vertex that it may not be in a partile mundane cnj??? In other words: We must always check the 'Reports' section in SF to make sure we are seeing a partile mundane cnj with planets 'crossing' the Vertex ?


https://imgur.com/X5ruUAC

[Jim Eshelman]

So, I have some follow-up questions in order to help me clarify my thoughts on your thinking about “Mundane crossing” of planets to the Vertex, regardless the type of “crossing” to a Vertex, and regardless the type of chart one was analyzing.

Match to what happens with major angles: Within a given chart (natal, return, ingress), take mundanely. However, the mundane work has proven solidly that transits to angles are ecliptical and quotidian angle contacts are ecliptical (not mundane). One would expect Vertex to behave the same way as everything else.

When I compute the CapQ for Tokyo on March 10th 1945 (CapQ link below), and see that CapQ Uranus is 270,04 in Azi using Solar Fire, which if I understand means Uranus is mundanely partile cnj CapQ Vertex---Does this mean that in certain other cases with CapQ charts when our eyes see a partile cnj of a CapQ planet with the CapQ Vertex that it may not be in a partile mundane cnj??? In other words: We must always check the 'Reports' section in SF to make sure we are seeing a partile mundane cnj with planets 'crossing' the Vertex ?

Quotidian contacts should be taken ecliptically, not mundanely - presuming they work just like everything else.

However, I should add that a separate study, published here years ago, showed solidly that Vertex in mundane charts is worthless in terms of the angular contacts. It produces behavior quite the opposite of everything else, i.e., Venus and Jupiter contacts most common for deep tragedies BUT not at a statistically significant level. At first, seeing only that Venus and Jupiter were most common, my thought was that the Vertex-Antivertex was actively suppressing the planet, but then I calculated that it wasn't a statistically significant aberration. The correct interpretation of the data is that there is no demonstrable "angularity" type effect at all for planets in mundane charts.

However, while planets on Vx-Av in ingresses don't register as "angular," they are capable of forming mundane squares to planets on horizon or meridian and these are ENORMOUSLY important - equal in every respect to any other aspects we use. These are the "PVP aspects" I keep mentioning, as in the chart above.

[SteveS]

Thanks Jim. So, if I understand, with your immense statistical work with Sidereal Astrology, we should pay attention to any possible mundane positions of our Natal Planets with our Natal Vertex for a given local. And then pay attention to the actual mundane position of transiting planets to our Natal Vertex?

[Jim Eshelman]

Mundane in the natal itself (included relocated), but ecliptical (not-mundane) for transits. (Which is useful since I don't think you have a tool that can give you the mundane azimuth of a transiting planet with respect to your natal chart.)

[SteveS]

Question Jim: In any CapQ/CanQ chart, would as our eyes view the Q charts alone-- all progressed partile planetary conjunctions to the Q Vertex be in mundane partile conjunction?

[Jim Eshelman]

Question Jim: In any CapQ/CanQ chart, would as our eyes view the Q charts alone-- all progressed partile planetary conjunctions to the Q Vertex be in mundane partile conjunction?

As mentioned above:

(1) No. All quotidian angle contacts work ecliptically, not mundanely.
(2) Additionally, the statistics are consistent with their being no relevance to Vertex in solar or lunar ingresses or the quotidians of the solar ingresses.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

No. All quotidian angle contacts work ecliptically, not mundanely.

So, on rare occasions when I see with my eyes a partile cnj of a planet in a Q chart, the planet's Azi in the 'Reports' section of SF will always be 90 or 270? Sorry Jim to keep pestering you with this mundane Vertex issue, but please understand my issue is not if 'quotidian angle contacts work ecliptically and not mundanely', only if all partile planetary conjunctions to a Q vertex are in Azi 90 or 270 seen in the 'Reports' section of SF.

[Jim Eshelman]

No. All quotidian angle contacts work ecliptically, not mundanely.

So, on rare occasions when I see with my eyes a partile cnj of a planet in a Q chart, the planet's Azi in the 'Reports' section of SF will always be 90 or 270?

If it were conjunct mundanely, this would be so EXCEPT you only see the azimuth of the progessed ingressed planets, not the transiting planets. (I've seen a planet conjunct the Vx or Av in longitude but as much as 120° off in azimuth, or vice versa.

Sorry Jim to keep pestering you with this mundane Vertex issue, but please understand my issue is not if 'quotidian angle contacts work ecliptically and not mundanely', only if all partile planetary conjunctions to a Q vertex are in Azi 90 or 270 seen in the 'Reports' section of SF.

Partile ecliptical contacts do not at all guarantee azimuth conjunctions. They may be unrelated. They can be all over the map. Remember that Vx contacts in low latitudes are like Asc contacts in high latitudes, meaning you can get a lot of distortion.

But yes, the mundane conjunction with Vx/Av is the 270 or 90 in azimuth report.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

But yes, the mundane conjunction with Vx/Av is the 270 or 90 in azimuth report.

As a general rule, is a true mundane planetary cnj with the Vx/Av a rare occurrence? Or, would your Natal Jupiter-Uranus mundo cnj your relocated Natal Vx in Bryce Canyon be the only place in the US this would occur? Your best guess--don't use any extra time to check.

[Jim Eshelman]

There is a circle wrapped around the Earth where this contact will exist exactly is close. Just like there is a circle around the globe where a given planet is on Ascendant or Descendant, etc.

It is exactly as rare as, for example, the same planets being the same distance from ascendant.

[SteveS]

I finally got it Jim, thanks.

[SteveS]

Jim, using your observations with conjunctions and oppositions crossings to the Vertex with Return Charts, only mundanely measured in azimuth, Queen Elizabeth calculates an “outstanding incident” Jan 19 2022 Sidereal Lunar Return (SLR). She has her Moon partile 180 Saturn (“outstanding incident” Moon-Saturn) with Saturn in azimuth 90,39; mundo 180 her SLR Vertex and Moon. With her SLR Mars angular partile 135 SLR Uranus and using the Vertex to symbolize “fated” events, I would guess this SLR will be a time of health crises in her life.
Queen’s 1/19/2022 SLR:
https://ibb.co/Kr8rQyL

[Jim Eshelman]

This is an interesting chart. I wish it made a better test, but she has the partile transit anyway so I'm not sure how we could tell if it's doing anything due to the Vertex.

I'm extremely skeptical of Vertex in SLRs. Unless the planets happen to foreground also, I don't see it activating anything. In this chart, we have:

18°25' Can - t/r Moon - 2°59' past Vx in azimuth
18°56' Cap - t Saturn - 0°40' past Av in azimuth

The SLR itself has Sun on EP (1°43') and Mars 2°22' above Asc. I think a Mars-rising SLR at the same time transiting Saturn opposes her Moon exactly is indeed likely to bring her under the weather. However, she also has Venus 1°22' from Asc, even closer to an angle, which seems protective. (It's primarily a Venus chart, but occurring at the same time that transiting Saturn opposes her Moon.)


Mike's TMSA gives us another tool. Because the transiting and natal Moon have different latitudes, they have different azimuth (just like they have different mundoscope positions). TMSA in return charts shows the natal planets precessed to the time of the return and, among other things, gives their azimuth. In this case, their azimuths are 2° different. In some occasions, this could give a difference in interpretation (transiting Moon-Saturn aspects vs. transiting Saturn to natal Moon). In this case, the close azimuth Saturn aspect is to natal Moon and not transiting Moon at all. (These numbers are slightly different because Solar Fire calculates the SLR for 6:18:25 AM and the more accurate TMSA calculates 6:18:38 AM, just a tiny difference.)

90°44 ' - t Saturn azimuth
271°42' - r Moon azimuth
273°03' - t Moon azimuth

Altogether, here is how TMSA 0.4 summarizes that SLR. You can see the foreground markers and their strengths at the far right end of the line, followed by foreground aspects and, finally, non-foreground partile aspects. It looks to me like two angular Suns, Venus being the most angular aspect, and the partile mundane aspect of transiting Moon to natal Jupiter will pull her through - even though Saturn exactly opposite her Moon, Mars rising, and an acquired mundane aspect of transiting Moon to natal Neptune (and even the partile mundane Sun-Pluto conjunction) will weigh on her health.

Code: Select all

Pl Longitude   Lat   Speed    RA    Decl    Azi     Alt     PVL    Ang G
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Transiting Planets                           
Ve 18Sg08'01" 06N28 - 0°25' 283°39' 16S21 115°13' - 1°12'   1°19' 100% F
Ma 01Sg08'20" 00S20 + 0°43' 265°50' 23S43 133°15' + 1°45' 357°35'  98% F
Su 04Cp05'34" 00N00 + 1°01' 301°17' 20S20 104°23' -14°39'  15°06'  90% F
Me 13Cp05'45" 02N22 - 0°54' 309°55' 15S57  94°56' -16°35'  16°39'  80% F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Radical Planets                             
Ur 03Pi38'59" 00S43 + 0°03' 359°05' 01S11  41°24' -32°07'  43°31'  94% F
Pl 19Ge00'00" 01S37 + 0°01' 105°04' 21N05 296°56' + 5°49' 186°31'  89% F
Su 06Ar29'59" 00N00 + 0°59'  29°23' 12N01   4°07' -26°24'  81°46'  83% F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tSu co tMe 01°33' 95%M
----------------------                                                  
tVe op rPl 00°52' 99%                                                   
tSu sq rSu 02°24' 89%                                                   
tMa sq rUr 02°31' 88%                                                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Non-Foreground Partile Aspects                     
                         tSu co tPl 00°33' 99%M                         
                         ----------------------                         
                         tMo op rJu 00°21'100%M                         
                         tMo co rNe 00°05'100%M                         
                         tSa op rMo 00°31' 99%                          
                         ----------------------                         
                         rMa co rJu 00°02'100%M                         
                         rMa op rNe 00°28'100%M                         
                         rJu op rNe 00°26'100%M                         

[SteveS]

Thanks Jim. I will only note her Jan 19 SLR if an outstanding Moon-Saturn health incident is timed with this SLR, since this is the only dire “outstanding incident” SLR with all of her solar year SLRs. Also, I note in her current SSR Pluto is the angular theme backed-upped with a partile mundo Moon-Saturn 180. Using Bradley’s SLRs rules with SSR, it will be the Jan 19th SLR which would time a Moon-Saturn incident. Time will soon tell.

[Jim Eshelman]

Thanks Jim. I will only note her Jan 19 SLR if an outstanding Moon-Saturn health incident is timed with this SLR, since this is the only dire “outstanding incident” SLR with all of her solar year SLRs. Also, I note in her current SSR Pluto is the angular theme backed-upped with a partile mundo Moon-Saturn 180. Using Bradley’s SLRs rules with SSR, it will be the Jan 19th SLR which would time a Moon-Saturn incident.

BTW, Steve, Mike and I have been discussing SSR/SLR interpretation reports down the road in TMSA that (at current thought) would include an opening sentence identify the "outstanding incident" SLRs. among other things.

I'd forgotten about this thread - just stumbled across it today - so I looked back at her Wikipedia article and whatever dated news I could pull up and don't see any outstanding events of the time that could fit the Moon-Saturn. However, her Platinum Jubilee began February 6 with a lot of attention and at least a bit of public activity, which seems to fit the general tone of an exactly angular Venus plus two foreground Suns (among other things). - This event, of course, was going to happen anyway, just based on the calendar and the passage of 70 years.