Clarification

[abby]

Recently I came upon a statement Mr. Eshelman made in a thread about astrological structures:

“Planets on angles seem more likely to express themselves in terms of the constellation they occupy.”

I don’t fully understand this, but it seems to be an important bit of information. Mr. Eshelman, could you be so kind as to clarify this for me?

[Jim Eshelman]

Recently I came upon a statement Mr. Eshelman made in a thread about astrological structures:

“Planets on angles seem more likely to express themselves in terms of the constellation they occupy.”

Abby, I don't remember the exact passage or my intent at the time, but I can imagine the path of my thinking... so let me ramble on this for a bit.

First, some general matters: All planets, in principle, express through their signs, though this is more obvious with some of them than others. Also, I want to be clear that a planet on an angler acts as itself, so that what 50 people with a particular planet closely angular would have in common is the nature of the planet, not the nature of its signs.

Another thing I did not mean was that sign-qualities of luminaries varies with whether they are angular. There is an old aphorism that would pop up in the Sidereal communities over the years that Sun-sign or Moon-sign is only important if Sun or Moon is on an angle. I disagree with that completely. Sun-sign and Moon-sign are always top-tier characteristics of a chart, comparable in importance to, say, a very closely angular planet. This is more true for Moon and Sun because these planets the most expressive of the core character and personality traits.

But what I probably did mean is that you miss the full flavor of an angular planet's nature unless you consider its sign position. This strongly colors most angular planets - even an angular Pluto or Neptune that would otherwise be quite unimportant. The sign effect on the angle itself is minor (Ascendant sign, e.g., isn't nearly as important as historic views suggest) and the sign on the planet may be not that big a deal (especially for the five outermost planets), but when you put the planet closely on an angle the combination is quite distinctive. For example, Jupiter in Aries on an angle will have quite a different feel from Jupiter in Taurus the same distance from the same angle.

Most of the time, the easiest way to get your mind pointed in the right way is to think of the planet and the ruler of its sign are conjoined on the angle. For example, Donald Trump has Mars rising, and - going no further than that - he's a really good example of a closely angular Mars. But, to go even further, his Mars is in Leo. You can blend interpretations for Mars angular and Mars in Leo or - to get your mind pointed in the same way - you can think of this as a Sun-Mars conjunction rising. Pete Buttigieg has Jupiter on MC, which fits all by itself, but that Jupiter is in Libra - the easiest way to view this is as a Venus-Jupiter and Jupiter-Saturn conjunction on MC.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Abby is this where you found it?
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1772#p11302

[abby]

Thank you so much for your reply!

For example, Jupiter in Aries on an angle will have quite a different feel from Jupiter in Taurus the same distance from the same angle.

In this example, how would the difference in angular Jupiter sign manifest at individual scale?

Also, how far can we consider an angular planet as conjunct the ruler of its sign? Is it the same strength as a natal aspect?

[abby]

Abby is this where you found it?
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1772#p11302

yes!