On Libsolar & Arisolar Q's & transits

[Jim Eshelman]

I've just documented that maybe - I'd even say probably - the Arisolar and Libsolar quotidians and transits are equal to the Cansolar, at least for specific scenarios.

Up to this point, working principles of read as follows: Both the CapQ and CanQ, and transits to angles and Moons of both the Capsolar and Cansolar, are valid, with the Cansolar versions having 70-75% the strength of the Capsolar versions. Both are to be considered valid, and they often reinforce each other but, when push comes to shove, the best practice is to look at CapQ and Capsolar transits if they have something to say, and, otherwise, fall back to the Cansolar ones. (Statistics demonstrate that the performance of the CanQ when the CapQ is dormant/silent is very high, whereas its reliability is much lower, and perhaps even unreliable, when the CapQ is vociferous).

The biggest exception is when the Cansolar is the main (or exclusive) player in the Bridge for an event. When that occurs, it tends to follow through on describing the event in full.

We've also previously found that the Arisolar and Libsolar dailies (i.e., quotidians and transits) are sometimes striking, and yet are so unreliable that they aren't usable as such.

Some new statistics suggest that the three non-Capsolar ingresses have nearly indistinguishably similar performance levels under the same conditions.

New Stuff?
Here's what I've found.

As you can read in Appendix C of the current edition of Sidereal Mundane Astrology, there are clear distinctions between the four solar ingresses, and the four lunar ingresses, in terms of their relative strengths and when they are operative. (You can read the details in the Appendix.) The same distinctions are "not bad" for the four quotidians (but not quite as sharp), and for transits they get confusing and inconsistent. The data suggests that we have to consider the quotidians and transits of a given ingress together, not separately, to get a realistic picture of what it is saying about an event. By methods used previously, we don't have enough data in the current pool to make these distinctions.

However, today I took a different approach which was able to better use the existing data pool to assess these distinctions. The results surprised me just a bit.

Using only non-dormant instances, the frequency that each scores at least +1 is as follows:

Capsolar quotidian & transits 264 of 278 95%
Arisolar quotidian & transits 211 of 266 79%
Cansolar quotidian & transits 227 of 274 83%
Libsolar quotidian & transits 206 of 262 79%

Only the Capsolar produce a high score, and it is one of the better scores we have seen. The other three have lower, and approximately matching, scores. This is, for example, nothing in this simple tally to suggest that the Cansolar quotidian and transits are substantially better than those for the Arisolar or Libsoar.

Next, we can distinguish, for the non-Capsolar ingresses, those situations where the Capsolar quotidians and transits are dormant, in contrast to those where they are active. In each case, only non-dormant examples are used, with a +1 score as the threshold. (Below, the first percentage listed is when the Capsolar dailies are dormant; the second is when they are not.)

Arisolar 100% 79%
Cansolar 100% 82%
Libsolar 67% 79%

One problem with these numbers is that there are very few examples for the first column. In only seven cases are the Capsolar quotidian and transits both dormant, and dormancy in the other three ingresses reduces this number further. For example, the Libsolar score, with Capsolar quotidian and transit dormancy, represents four instances out of six, whereas the other two (Arisolar and Can-solar) strikingly had perfect scores in those seven instances. We need to take those 100% scores with a grain of salt but, similarly, the Libsolar score probably would not be so low in a larger sample.

This summary is quite informative. Historically, we have compared the daily behavior of the Capsolar quotidians and transits vs. those of the Cansolar. From just that comparison, it appears that the Cansolar daily indicators hold their own compared to solar and lunar ingresses, but are only about 70-75% as strong as the corresponding Capsolar timing techniques. Our working procedures have called for generally consulting the Cansolar dailies (for primary information) only when the Capsolar dailies have nothing to contribute. However, the above figures seem to document little or no difference between the Cansolar, Arisolar, and Libsolar on these points. This opens new questions we will need to explore going forward.

[Jim Eshelman]

To be perfectly true to these numbers, and to test exactly what is shown, we won't find many examples - because the protocol would be to do nothing different when the CapQ and Capsolar transits have something to say, which only leaves a small number for secondary assessment.

In those few cases, where the Capsolar dailies are silent, we should check not just the Cansolar as in the past, but also the Arisolar and Libsolar dailies also. We should do this long enough to build up some field experience with how these work. It may also turn out that, while the Cansolar is a proven item for the Bridge, the Arisolar and Libsolar are not. Or maybe they are. (I'm watching Bride-like Arisolar and Libsolar hits in the monthly forecasts this year, as they come around.)

Always something new to learn... and new distinctions we haven't been able to dig into until the data pool numbers increased. (It would still be nice to have a much larger pool to get into some of the key points of the information shown above.)