Pluto Angular Ecliptically but not Mundanely

[Lance]

Female A.M.
2-9-1986
5:15 AM
Port Aransas, TX

In this natal chart, Pluto is angular ecliptically but not mundanely. I've become accustomed to giving the mundoscope the heavier weight, but I'm not sure how to interpret this.

Does each measurement (ecliptic vs. mundane) get the full respect of the ten degrees orb?

[Jim Eshelman]

No: The ecliptic angularity doesn't count at all. It's a non-issue. This Pluto is 10 1/2° from MC (which isn't that wide, except by 10° it's already been tapering down a lot).

However, there are three other indications:

First, her Pluto is stationary. I wouldn't rank this with the same intensity as angularity, but it's probably as significant as weak angularity. Always count a stationary planet as stronger.

Second, she has Eris square Ascendant 1°24'. We're still learning about Eris and I don't think it's that much like Pluto, but I can see how it would be easier to mistake it for Pluto while we're learning about it. My working definition for angular Eris is: Mischievous, curious, trickster, outlier, and disruptor: Naturally navigates the swarm of chaos more easily with practical advantage (but thus also leaves a wake of chaos, disrupting imposed orders and conditions, because they have little native resistance to disorder). Managing the incomprehensible, juggles undecided possibilities.

Third, if you don't count Eris, she has nothing angular or foreground. Pluto, though technically "over the line," is the most angular planet in her chart. Proportionately, its voice might be a little stronger.

Mostly, though, I think the main factor is the station, which makes it strong in a way similar to (but weaker than) close angularity.