"Outstanding Incidents"

[SteveS]

Jim, I hope I use the right words for this question. Before you taught me the rules and guidelines of Sidereal Mundane Astrology, the most important astrology (relative to my astrological objectives) I had learned from your other teachings was when an Individual Return Chart exhibited an “outstanding incident” angular partile aspect.

Do you consider any kind of non-dormant partile aspect in a Solar or Lunar Ingress Chart to manifest an “outstanding (mundane) incident” just as you would with a Solar or Lunar Return Chart for an individual?

[Jim Eshelman]

Do you consider any kind of non-dormant partile aspect in a Solar or Lunar Ingress Chart to manifest an “outstanding (mundane) incident” just as you would with a Solar or Lunar Return Chart for an individual?

I could take this question two ways. Which do you mean?

Do you mean: Any partile aspect in as non-dormant ingress (no planets in the ingress within 3° of major angles or 2° of minor angles)?

Or do you mean: Any partile aspect that wasn't itself within 3° of a major angle (or 2° of a minor angle) in the chart?

In either case, we are, of course, excluding Moon aspects since they are effective worldwide regardless of angularity. They affect the location of the event because they affect the whole world (including the event location). This usually makes them useless in sports prediction (for example) because they exist for the home towns of both teams. (I say "usually" because I can conceive of them having an impact on things that are common to both teams, like "everybody is in a sports mood today," "it's a bloodbath on both sides," "looks like a day of turn-overs and an underdog win," etc. Normally, though, it's hard to work them meaningfully into a comparison of one city to another on the same day.)

[SteveS]

Using for example the partile Mars-Saturn 90 in the 2021 Capsolar. Will this manifest an outstanding Mars-Saturn incident in the Capsolar, just as it would manifest an outstanding Mars-Saturn incident for an individual in a Solar Return?

[Jim Eshelman]

Using for example the partile Mars-Saturn 90 in the 2021 Capsolar. Will this manifest an outstanding Mars-Saturn incident in the Capsolar, just as it would manifest an outstanding Mars-Saturn incident for an individual in a Solar Return?

Simple answer> Yes. Both planets are foreground and the aspect is partile. It has unusual importance. There are hundreds of examples of this available.

In the beginning, there was no obvious evidence that partility meant all that much in ingresses. By logic it seemed it must, but it wasn't an overly obvious feature when studying events. Therefore, I set out to specifically examine this. You might want to review this thread:

"How Important is Partility? viewtopic.php?f=32&t=515
My conclusion was:

Overall, the results are interesting. I can't draw hard lines in the sand, but I have a better feeling of the relationship and relevance of different orb zones, and have an idea for going forward.

It remains clear that the wider orbs (3° range etc.), on which we have been relying most heavily, are fully functional. There were also a lot of examples that fully came alive only when the quotidian orb was a full 2°, not 1°. There is no reason to change thinking about these orbs and their value.

OTOH, the vast majority of events catalogued (I'd estimate 70-80%, but didn't count) had highly precise (I'd almost say targeted) partile angularities of the right planets. In fact, one of the interesting things is that when there were partile contacts, they were almost always of the right kind - Mars and Saturn for bad events; Uranus and Pluto for rupture-disruption-shock events; etc. A couple of categories had more Jupiter than one would expect (e.g., earthquakes), but only a few and, usually, in a place that makes immediate sense. (E.g., the earthquakes are nearly always parallel major relief efforts [or tsunamis].) I'd say that around 80-90% of the partile contacts were searingly correct...

There were several cases where two planets were within 3° of angles, one was [a] better fit than the other, and the one that was the better fit would be the one within 1°. I don't think I saw an exception to that. For example, if Jupiter and Saturn were both angular for a really bad event (perhaps in aspect), and one was within 1° of the angle, I think it was always Saturn...

That's valuable, since it does suggest that there is a sufficiently acute distinction between partile (or just-past-partile) and other close, viable aspects. In general, if a chart is complicated, it's quite justified to look at anything < 1° from the angles for the root feel, and only layer other things in atop that first impression. This isn't perfect. I saw almost half a dozen examples where, say, Jupiter was the only partile planet, and clearly did not mark the event; but a different chart [for the same event] had, say, Mars exactly angular...

I then decided to test, in my monthly mundane predictions, a working method: Using the presence or absence of partile aspects and angularity to see if this at least singled out which lunar ingresses would mark bigger events. I thought I'd modify my language so that for lunar ingresses without these partile aspects I'd suggest milder events, while for those with partile aspects I'd suggest more intense events. I think I've maybe increased my accuracy (on the general tone of the times) somewhat since doing this, but I can't guarantee it's that much of an effect.

I think this is partly because there are so many overlapping charts - one or two solar ingresses, one or two lunar ingresses, quotidians - that ONE of them might have the key aspect partile and o=the others have it platic, but that one partile aspect in that one chart carried the day (and the other charts simply agreed with it).

[Jim Eshelman]

Here's the most important thing I've learned from the ingresses on this topic, though: If the aspect is partile, the angularity doesn't have to be partile. Once the planets "qualify" to be considered by being foreground at all (and I mean all the way to 10°), then it doesn't matter how wide they are from the angles - the partile aspect still stands out as the "big deal" of the chart.

Though I've seen scores of examples of this, none is more vivid than the 2020 Capsolar for Washington, DC (and, for that matter, for many other places in the world). By the usual way of listing angularities then aspects, here is how we'd usually break down the Washington 2020 Capsolar:

Uranus on EP 1°24'
Mercury on MC 3°02'
Sun on MC 4°15'
Saturn on MC 8°00'
Pluto on MC 8°25'

Saturn-Pluto conj. 0°15'
Saturn-Uranus sq. 1°30' mundo
Sun-Saturn conj. 1°53'
Uranus-Pluto sq. 1°55' mundo
Sun-Uranus sq. 2°15' mundo
Sun-Mercury conj. 3°14'

Looking at this, the most angular planet is Uranus and, of the foreground planets, Saturn and Pluto barely make the cut. They wouldn't have been where we first start looking. We would have started with Uranus and then layered in Mercury and Sun etc.

But look at the aspects! The closest aspect in the chart is Saturn conjunct Pluto within 0°15'! This aspect "counts" because the planets are foreground (even widely, thinly foreground). Once we tabulate everything, it stands out as the strongest thing in the chart.

Important practical tool: Early in the SMA projects I came to think of planets being foreground AT ALL (no matter how wide) as simply "qualifying" them to be considered in the chart. Once that "cut" was made, then all their mutual aspects "count." Over time, I've started to think of the angularity as "just another aspect" in the sense that Uranus' 1°24' orb to EP is like any other 1°24' aspect. The practical way to handle this (which I usually do in my head) is:
-- Determine what planets are foreground or angular. List these angularities by orb to sort priorities.
-- Find any ecliptical or mundane aspects between the angular/foreground planets. Sort these by orb also, to help filter priorities.
-- Then merge the two lists: Fold the aspects and angularities into the same list to see what the strongest factors in the chart are.

For the 2020 Capsolar, it looks like this:

Saturn-Pluto conj. 0°15'
Saturn-Uranus sq. 1°30'
Uranus on EP 1°24'
Sun-Saturn conj. 1°53'
Uranus-Pluto sq. 1°55'
Sun-Uranus sq. 2°15'
---------------------------------
Mercury on MC 3°02'
Sun-Mercury conj. 3°14'
Sun on MC 4°15'
---------------------------------
Saturn on MC 8°00'
Pluto on MC 8°25'

This easily identifies the Saturn-Pluto aspect as the single most important factor in the chart and, indeed, this one aspect defined most of the year. Saturn square Uranus is second strongest. ALL the aspects are stronger than the widest angularity (since we take aspects to 3° but angularity to 10°), which, by itself, shows why the wider angularities tend not to be as loud in the chart. (E.g., we interpret the Saturn-Pluto conjunction first, but might not get around to including the separate factors of "Saturn is angular" and "Pluto is angular.")

[Jim Eshelman]

We can use the 2021 Capsolar as another example to sort out the priorities of complicated factors. We have two partile aspects but, of the two, one has the planets also very close to angles and the other has its two planets a little farther away. How do we sort out the relative importance of all these factors? By their orbs. Here's how the Washington 2021 Capsolar breaks out in this kind of sort:

Saturn sq. MC 0°18'
Mars on MC 0°29'
Mars-Saturn conj. 0°34'
Jupiter-Uranus sq. 0°42'
Moon-Uranus sq. 1°10' mundo
Mars-Jupiter sq. 2°13'
Moon-Mars sq. 2°27' mundo
Jupiter-Saturn conj. 2°33' mundo
Mars-Uranus conj. 2°55'
Moon on Dsc 2°56'
Mercury on Dsc 2°49'
------------------------------
Mercury-Jupiter conj. 3°44' mundo
Uranus on MC 4°06' stationary
Jupiter on Dsc 6°33'

This time it's easy: The closest aspect ALSO involves the two planets closest to angles. That makes it a no-brainer: Three of the four partile factors in the chart are (in order of strength) Saturn on an angle, Mars on an angle, and Mars conjunct Saturn. The give us, from the start, the certainty that, "This is a bad year." Burt Jupiter square Uranus comes right behind them. Even though Jupiter and Uranus are the least angular foreground planets (at the bottom of the list), their aspect is the next strongest factor after Saturn angular, Mars angular, and Mars conjunct Saturn. We don't give much importance to the specific ideas that "Uranus is angular" and "Jupiter is angular" (for example, we don't start suggesting this will be a prospering year), but we give enormous importance to the Jupiter-Uranus aspect.

If you look back at my 2021 Capsolar interpretation/forecast, you'll see that I defined the year first as a bad year - giving "first voice" to the three factors at the top of the list. I then said that Jupiter-Uranus was the answer, the response, to this Mars-Saturn - intentionally choosing words to make Jupiter-Uranus secondary to Mars-Saturn, yet otherwise nearly as important as the Mars-Saturn aspect. After establishing these leading, partile factors as setting the core meaning of the year, I went on to elaborate the next three aspects (Moon's square to Mars-Uranus and the Mars-Jupiter square) and then didn't spend much time on the rest. I never interpreted Jupiter and Uranus as foreground - you won't find my "Jupiter angular" or "Uranus angular" interpretations in the forecast - though their aspect nearly ties for top spot.

Hopefully this tedious example is useful.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

Hopefully this tedious example is useful.

Yes Jim, although with lots of details to absorb, very helpful. Thanks