Parans, semi-parans, or...?

[SteveS]

Jim, I realize you never much liked the word Paran. But Fagan taught a Paran was the most potent combo there was is astrology, which I have definitely proven to myself to be true with me relocating myself many times in my life to catch a paran with my SLR’s or a transiting paran with certain Sidereal Chart primary angles. I refer to a paran as a combo instead of an aspect since two or more planets can be simultaneously on primary angles without forming any of the standard aspects we use in Sidereal Astrology.

Many times I see planetary pictures (combo’s) involving one planet on a primary angle and another planet on a minor angle at the same time. My question: Could we label these type planetary combo’s as semi-paran combo’s for discussion purposes? And, do you feel these type combo’s would also operate similar with more potency but not as potent as a standard paran on the primary angles?

Semi-Paran as a possible label?:
One planet on a primary angle and another planet on a minor angle in the same chart. Or, one planet on a minor angle with another planet on a minor angle in the same chart. Standard Parans blend their influences. Shouldn’t we also allow a semi-paran also blend their planetary influences in a chart?

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim, I realize you never much liked the word Paran.

"Never" is too strong. In the last few years, I've gone to think it leads us astray and misses the point. Continuing...

But Fagan taught a Paran was the most potent combo there was is astrology, which I have definitely proven to myself to be true with me relocating myself many times in my life to catch a paran with my SLR’s or a transiting paran with certain Sidereal Chart primary angles. I refer to a paran as a combo instead of an aspect since two or more planets can be simultaneously on primary angles without forming any of the standard aspects we use in Sidereal Astrology.

Let's get past the language barrier first: I agree with the Fagan statement if we are talking about co-angularity. When he wrote of parans, he was meaning that two or more planets are on angles at the same time. I agree that this is quite potent and, in things like SLRs or ingresses, where they are also in mundane aspect, it's very strong. I've dropped the word "paran" for two main reasons:

1. It excludes co-angularities that involve any minor angles. That is, "paran" only applies to two planets concurrently on the horizon or meridian and would exclude, e.g., one planet exactly rising in partile square to another planet on the Zenith (square Ascendant). The wider concept of "co-angularity" includes these loopholes.

2. The paran concept presumes that all angularities are best measured mundanely. While I find this true in return charts, natals, and ingresses, the mundane astrology work has confirmed over and over that quotidians do not hit mundanely, they hit ecliptically. Parans as such would miss these and would introduce mundane angularities that are invalid, while the wider idea of "co-angularity" correctly catches it.

Every year, by hand (or calculator), I used to calculate a speculum of my new solar return, precess my natal planets and calculate a new speculum, merge them, try to find planets that would hit the angles at the same time, and after these three or four hours of work I'd have a list of quotidian dates that were usually complete duds. I now know it's because those angularities (for quotidians) are not validly measured mundanely but, rather, need to be taken ecliptically. That would require a different process.

Many times I see planetary pictures (combo’s) involving one planet on a primary angle and another planet on a minor angle at the same time. My question: Could we label these type planetary combo’s as semi-paran combo’s for discussion purposes? And, do you feel these type combo’s would also operate similar with more potency but not as potent as a standard paran on the primary angles?

I like that you catch this exception (which I mentioned above). I think "paran" is confusing here and the simpler idea of "co-angularity" (which literally just means "angular at the same time") takes care of it.

[SteveS]

I understand Jim. I've got no problem with "co-angularity" for discussion purposes. If I see a chart with Mars on the MC and Saturn on the WP, I should state this as a strong "co-angularity" of Mars-Saturn like the two influence are blended?

[Jim Eshelman]

I understand Jim. I've got no problem with "co-angularity" for discussion purposes. If I see a chart with Mars on the MC and Saturn on the WP, I should state this as a strong "co-angularity" of Mars-Saturn like the two influence are blended?

I find that this is often the easiest way to get an interpretation. In this case, there is something further: MC and WP are both on the equator, so I'd look to see if they are not only angular but also in close square aspect in right ascension!

That's the difference I can see: A paran is both co-angularity and an exact aspect. If there is simply co-angularity, that's important, but if you can find an actual aspect in some framework they have in common - ecliptic, prime vertical, equator - then you have the golden goose. Close orbed aspects AND close angularity are the big-piston machines.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

...so I'd look to see if they are not only angular but also in close square aspect in right ascension!

In other words, in this example look to see if Saturn was actually squared the MC offering a true important Sidereal Astrology 90 aspect?

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim wrote:

...so I'd look to see if they are not only angular but also in close square aspect in right ascension!

In other words, in this example look to see if Saturn was actually squared the MC offering a true important Sidereal Astrology 90 aspect?

Or, what I actually meant was Saturn square Mars in RA.

Look at the (now expired) 2020 Capsolar for Washington. Mercury near MC at 3°14' Cap, Uranus on EP at 7°39' Ari. They're square but not closely (too wide to usually be considered in an ingress). But in RA Mercury is 300°48', Uranus 30°38', so they are square within 0°10'. That Mercury-Uranus square was a basic feature of 2020 (e,g, Zoom becoming a feature of everyone's life).

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

Look at the (now expired) 2020 Capsolar for Washington. Mercury near MC at 3°14' Cap, Uranus on EP at 7°39' Ari. They're square but not closely (too wide to usually be considered in an ingress). But in RA Mercury is 300°48', Uranus 30°38', so they are square within 0°10'.

This confounds me. I don't understand how this computes to a square of Me-Ur in RA Is there another simpler way with words to get me to understand this? In other words, are you saying when we see a planet tightly conjunct the EP/WP we should always check for tight 90 degree aspects in RA with other planets with mundane charts?

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim wrote:

Look at the (now expired) 2020 Capsolar for Washington. Mercury near MC at 3°14' Cap, Uranus on EP at 7°39' Ari. They're square but not closely (too wide to usually be considered in an ingress). But in RA Mercury is 300°48', Uranus 30°38', so they are square within 0°10'.

This confounds me. I don't understand how this computes to a square of Me-Ur in RA Is there another simpler way with words to get me to understand this? In other words, are you saying when we see a planet tightly conjunct the EP/WP we should always check for tight 90 degree aspects in RA with other planets with mundane charts?

In Solar Fire when you click Report, one of the columns shows "Rt. Asc.," or RA. Mercury at 300°48' minus Uranus at 30°38' is 270°10', which is a square. (Or: Uranus 30°38' + 360° = 390°38'. Subtract Mercury 300°48' to get 89°50'.)

You can get Solar Fire to display these for you by doing the Z-Analogue RA report - it might look more familiar. This Analogue is slightly confusing because it doesn't put it against the backdrop of the angles (but it includes MC and EP on the wheel - take a look). I find it easier to read the numbers off the Report than to do another analogue chart, but this is an option. If you run the Z-Analogue RA for the 2020 Washington Capsolar, it shows:

MC 29°14' Capricorn (EP 29°14' Aries)
Uranus 0°38' Taurus
Mercury 0°48' Aquarius

As with the PV analogue, these aren't real zodiacal positions, but they may make it easier to see that there is an aspect.

MC, IC, EP, and WP are all positions on the celestial equator exactly 90°00' from each other in right ascension. I don't think that aspects in RA are generally important, but in the particular case of two planets being on these specific angles AND in exact aspect, the connection definitely shows.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

I think you're trying to do the math as "one starts from 0 and goes to 330.48, and the other starts from 0 and goes to 30.28 and getting 301. You need the distance between the planets, not the overlapping amount from 0. 0 is an artificial point and you don't really care how far they each are from 0 when you're trying to find the aspect between them.

[SteveS]

OK Jim, I now see/understand better where you are coming from. Let me think through this some more and get back with for a couple more questions for possible better understanding about these RA aspects.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

You can get Solar Fire to display these for you by doing the Z-Analogue RA report - it might look more familiar.

This really helps me Jim, I like seeing this Z-Analogue RA report much better than juggling the RA math 90 aspects with SF Reports that JSAD noted. I have never worked with the Z-Analogue RA report before today. It stands to reason in my mind that a partile 90 RA aspect would pack more punch. Anyway, this thread/discussions is helping me possibly see/understand Sports charts better with SMA. I love learning new techniques with Solarfire.

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim wrote:

You can get Solar Fire to display these for you by doing the Z-Analogue RA report - it might look more familiar.

This really helps me Jim, I like seeing this Z-Analogue RA report much better than juggling the RA math 90 aspects with SF Reports that JSAD noted. I have never worked with the Z-Analogue RA report before today. It stands to reason in my mind that a partile 90 RA aspect would pack more punch. Anyway, this thread/discussions is helping me possibly see/understand Sports charts better with SMA. I love learning new techniques with Solarfire.

Remember: I think the RA aspects are only relevant for planets right on the angles (the RA-based angles: MC, IC, EP, WP). They don't appear to be important by themselves just because there is an aspect (in the way that ecliptical and PV aspects are valid regardless).

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

Remember: I think the RA aspects are only relevant for planets right on the angles (the RA-based angles: MC, IC, EP, WP).

Yes, I understand. It's just I have always looked at these as like a semi-paran with potency. I have never know/thought of these as partile 90 aspects in RA. I will give a couple examples later to make sure I understand with clarity.

[Jim Eshelman]

Split off from the prior thread onto which it was tacked.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

Close orbed aspects AND close angularity are the big-piston machines.

Exactly! When I first encountered your book “Interpreting Solar Returns,” this was the most important astrological factor for me I learned, recognizing when an “outstanding incident” would occur relative to the planets involved in the close orbed aspect with one of the planets angular, particularly partile aspects. Your book taught me so much about how to read a chart.