Bagdad Irag's 1991 Partile Mundo Aspected 1991 Capsolar

[SteveS]

One of the best examples of a Capsolar with partile mundane aspects I have ever witness: Bagdad, Iraq 1991. A war was declared on Bagdad by coalition forces from the West with a deadline given for the West’s demands which coincidentely began on Bagdad’s 1991 Capsolar.

An interesting 22 min animated link depicting the malefic destructive forces of a partile mundo Sun-Mars 90 and a mundo partile 90 of Saturn-Pluto = an acute planetary combo of Sun-Mars-Saturn-Pluto unleased on Bagdad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg

Bagdad’s 1991 Mundo Capsolar:
https://ibb.co/gMK3Ypz

[ODdOnLifeItself]

Very interesting...

The Mars-Sun square with 0° 4' orb seems especially telling, for a place where their government is under attack. Saturn-Pluto fits naturally for the over-the-top destruction of infrastructure, etc.

One question, how do you see the Jupiter-Venus opposition, relative to this? (the expansion of more positive/peaceful relations, 5 weeks later? the foreign (Jup) gathering of the spoils (Venus)?)

The CapLunar seems telling as well, with the Uranus-Neptune conjunction right on an angle, with Ingress Moon conjunct Sun and Saturn.

[ODdOnLifeItself]

Using my favorite USA chart (Alexander Marr rectification), the SR for the Gulf War (Baghdad) looks especially telling. For a country at war (though the U.S. is virtually always in some type of "war," going on decades), Mars on the Midheaven of the SR seems 100% corroborating of the Marr-rectification.

http://www.james-alexander.de/GulfWar_BiWheel.PNG

[Jim Eshelman]

This Capsolar is indeed an interesting chart. It's one we normally wouldn't examine. Furthermore, this is an especially interesting event to study because the ingresses (that normally are stunning in describing major events) almost totally fail us.

First, some background on the technical details Steve is citing.

The Baghdad 1991 Baghdad Capsolar is dormant. Normally we wouldn't read it except for those factors (Moon aspects) which have worldwide significance. (Moon aspects are always significant - for all parts of the world - in mundane charts.) However, a few years ago, when our main theories on the Sidereal ingresses were solid, I started looking at things that might stretch the system a bit, give us more detail. One of the things I examined were mundane aspects for one locale that were not also ecliptical aspects. I was curious about these because - in a sense similar to angularity - they do mathematically identify a subset of the world, i.e., to some extent they single out certain parts of the globe that have an effect not existing everywhere on the globe.

What I found was that these aspects (mundane aspects that are not also ecliptical aspects) had a minor but actual impact. They couldn't be relied on to tell the fundamental nature of an event, but they gave supplemental details. In subsequent editions of Sidereal Mundane Astrology, I acknowledged this effect but rarely mentioned it in the calculated charts - it's too minor. I do, however, use it in mundane forecasting, where it lets me add subtleties not otherwise evident.

Partility was not a factor in their importance. Any Class 1 conjunctions oppositions and squares counted, provided they didn't also exist ecliptically.

In Steve's example, Baghdad has Sun square Mars in mundo 0°05' and Saturn square Pluto in mundo 0°30'. The partility is attention-grabbing. Most importantly - probably the decisive factor - is that in the ecliptical positions of the Capsolar there is no Sun-Mars square at all (there is a Class 2 trine we don't count) and no Saturn-Pluto square at all (unless you stretch to the crumbling edge of Class 3). Even though these are two of the most important aspects for war, and even though much of the world was involved, it doesn't show up ecliptically.

I wouldn't have looked at these aspects in examining this Capsolar ahead of time because the chart is dormant - and one thing I know for sure is that aspects of this sort to not overcome dormancy. Earlier ingresses still flow through - that was clear from the SMA study. However, this doesn't mean they aren't significant to some measure anyway. There simply were not enough charts where dormant ingresses had such aspects to draw any conclusion one way or another.

So... this chart is at least interesting.

[Jim Eshelman]

The Gulf War began January 17, 1991, 2:38 AM BAT, with the first air attack on Baghdad, Iraq. It's one of the worst examples of Sidereal mundane astrology I've ever seen.

The Capsolar, which occurred two and a half days earlier, is dormant for Baghdad. It's quite significant for other places - for example, in Washington Venus and Pluto are each within a few minutes of angles, a typical mark of dramatic shifts in foreign relations etc. - but not in Baghdad. Affecting the entire world (including Baghdad) is a 2°14' Moon-Neptune conjunction, suggesting worldwide waves of extreme emotional reaction, fervor, and herd-mind arousal accompanied by confusion, disorientation, uncertainty, and an undermined sense of security.

It's a little surprising to me that the attack didn't begin before January 15. The prior (1990) Capsolar had Mars on EP 0°49'. This, of course, showed Saddam's own aggressions with the invasion of Kuwait. It could, as well, have shown the attack on Baghdad by the U.S. and our allies, but it didn't.

If the Capsolar didn't show the event, what ingress flowed through? The first one to check is always the Cansolar, which had Moon 0°04' from an angle and Pluto moderately foreground. It's an accurate chart, but not a great chart. I'd have to review domestic conditions in Iraq that year to understand the exact meaning of that angular, unaspected Moon, but Pluto at least shows some high impact and significant shifts. Of greater interest (especially for the current thread) is that the Cansolar for Baghdad has a 2°38' Mercury-Mars mundane square that does not exist ecliptically. This is one of the most common aspects for both military mobilizations in general and air attacks in particular,

Because the Capsolar is dormant, the Libsolar flows through as the Quarter chart. This is the trigger ingress, surely the most important solar ingress! For Baghdad, Mars is 0°24' from WP. Worldwide, Moon squared Saturn 1°00', conjoined Venus 0°49', and conjoined Mercury 1°40'. For Baghdad (mundanely), these aspects were even closer, e.g., Moon-Saturn was 0°23'. Mars exactly angular with an exact Moon-Saturn square, part of a larger Moon-activated Venus-Saturn pattern, shows the events of the year quite well.

[Jim Eshelman]

For the month and week, beginning less than two days earlier, the Caplunar lets us down miserably. It's one of the worst misfits of a Sidereal ingress to a major event. In addition to a partile Moon-Sun conjunction worldwide (square Saturn), it featured:

Venus on IC 0°56'
Jupiter on MC 2°25'
Pluto more widely foreground

Venus opposes Jupiter 3°08'. This chart completely fails to describe conditions in Baghdad for the month and, in particular, for the week. The event would have been much better described by the prior Caplunar, which ended the day before: It had Neptune about 1° from WP-a and an exact Moon-Saturn conjunction setting. But, nope - the world waited until that emotionally and physically devastating chart was expired before the attack began.

How about timing for the day?

The Capsolar gives us no daily timing. This opens the gates to check all the other solar ingresses (for their indications to swarm in strongly). Immediately, the Cansolar Quotidian comes to our rescue: The war began with transiting Mars conjunct CanQ Moon, rotated to conjoin a CanQ angle:

2°31' Tau - CanQ EP-a
3°51' Tau - CanQ Moon (0°12' from angle in RA)
4°34' Tau - t Mars (1°35' from angle in RA)

Transits to the Cansolar had also brought the event right up to this time of the year. Transiting Pluto squared Cansolar MC (1°04'), barely a degree from opposite Cansolar Moon; while transiting Venus squared Cansolar Asc (0°07') and Pluto (0°15'). - Venus-Pluto pairings, as mentioned above, are exactly right for dramatic shifts in foreign relations in general and military attacks of this sort in particular.

Lesser ingresses also had a say in the day: The Libsolar, which already had an exactly angular Mars, brought ingress Mars back to a LibQ angle on January 17. Transiting Uranus was in long-term square to Arisolar MC and rotated quotidian MC opposite ingress and transiting Uranus for the "shock and awe" attack.

So the indications for the actual day were quite good. The solar ingresses were thin (with the Libsolar being the primary, ruling indicator of the event). The one major lunar ingress completely sucked and failed.

[SteveS]

Jim, I will never understand spherical astronomy the way you understand. All I really know is mundane aspects works at times, you have proven that to me. But, why do mundane aspects accurately show themselves with the Prime Vertical Circle? And why do they calculate only for a particular area on the globe?

Oddon wrote:

Using my favorite USA chart (Alexander Marr rectification), the SR for the Gulf War (Baghdad) looks especially telling. For a country at war (though the U.S. is virtually always in some type of "war," going on decades), Mars on the Midheaven of the SR seems 100% corroborating of the Marr-rectification.

Most interesting Oddon! I also note using Marr’s USA Chart for the 1940 SSR (Declaration of war with Japan), Natal USA Mars partile conjunct 1940 SSR ASC, partile 90 SSR Neptune & 1,27 90 Natal Neptune—even more impressive IMO! I have never worked with Marr’s USA Chart. Would you mind opening-up a topic thread under Misc on Mundane Astrology for discussion on Marr’s USA Chart? Thanks.

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim, I will never understand spherical astronomy the way you understand. All I really know is mundane aspects works at times, you have proven that to me. But, why do mundane aspects accurately show themselves with the Prime Vertical Circle? And why do they calculate only for a particular area on the globe?

Let me answer the second question first: Yes, the answer is in the spherical math, but here's a simple way to understand it.

Let's suppose Sun is exactly in the mathematical center of the 11th house and Mars is in the exact mathematical center of the 2nd house. In this case, they would be in mundane square, right? But as you change geographic latitude, the houses grow or shrink - Asc moves farther from or closer to a square to MC - and both of these planets will be displaced from being exactly at the center (15°) of their respective houses. Perhaps at an extreme latitude, Sun will move back to the 11th cusp and Mars closer to the 3rd cusp so that they are far from a mundane square.

Since their mundane house position, or proportionate distance between the horizon and meridian changes with place on Earth, they will only have the mundane square (i.e., being the same % through their respective houses) at certain locations on Earth.


As for why these are measured along the PV, I can only speculate. We don't have a way of knowing the way, though we have a way to confirm WHAT is happening (i.e., that mundane aspects work). There is a natural innate link between the horizon, meridian, and prime vertical and it seems the PV is the one of these in which the relationship of the other two is measured.

[SteveS]

This helps Jim, thanks. Is it possible to have a partile ecliptical 90 and a partile mundo 90 with the same two planets?

[Jim Eshelman]

This helps Jim, thanks. Is it possible to have a partile ecliptical 90 and a partile mundo 90 with the same two planets?

Yes, for example when both planets have almost no celestial latitude and the Midheaven is near the solstices (i.e., the houses are very close to "equal houses").

Not quite double-partile, but notice that I have a mundane Mars-Neptune square 0°07' and an ecliptical 2°25' square.

[SteveS]

Jim, do you consider the 0,07 mundo 90 Mars-Neptune aspect an importnat aspect for your life?

[Jim Eshelman]

The Mars-Neptune square is close (Class 1) regardless of mundane aspect considerations, so one can't be definitive. Yes, in my best and worst traits, it's one of my most descriptive aspects.

What's particularly interesting, though, is that at birthplace the mundane aspect is my single closest aspect, but I lost that distinction whem I moved to California. I can see significant shifts in my character contrasting my first 19 years in Indiana vs. The rest of my life out here. One of the most interesting features of mundane aspects in a nativity is how they shift with locale.

[Jim Eshelman]

Steve, to make this more concrete, and using TMSA (Version 4 Preview Edition) to do the work for me, here are my closest natal aspects for BIRTHPLACE, mundo interwoven with eclipto (all Class 1 aspects):

Ma sq Ne 00°07' mundo
Ve sq Pl 00°13'
Ju co Ur 00°17'
Ne sx Pl 00°46'
Ve tr Ur 01°27'
Mo sx Ma 01°31'
Ve tr Ju 01°44'
Ur sq Ne 02°00'
Ju sq Ne 02°16'
Me co Sa 02°24'
Ve sx Ma 02°57'

Here are my closest natal aspects for CURRENT RESIDENCE for contrast:

Ur sq Ne 00°11' mundo
Ve sq Pl 00°13'
Ju co Ur 00°17'
Ju sq Ne 00°33' mundo
Ne sx Pl 00°46'
Ve tr Ur 01°27'
Mo sx Ma 01°31'
Me co Sa 01°36' mundo
Ve tr Ju 01°44'
Ma sq Ne 02°25'
Ve sx Ma 02°57'

These portray significantly different people! (I'd have surely been in real trouble if I'd stayed in my original location.) If you compose a picture of me by taking the aspects in order - reading the closest one, then adding each successive aspect in a way that has to fit into what came before - you get very different impressions of who I am. I submit that the first list is representative of me growing up, and the second list of me after a few years of settling into and living in my new location. This comes from dropping one mundane aspect (that defaults to its wider ecliptical orb) and adding several new mundane aspects (that are closer than their ecliptical counterparts).

BTW, for residence, Jupiter squares Sedna 0°01' in mundo. I've left out the Sedna aspects to simplify, but I think that one is important to note.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

The Mars-Neptune square is close (Class 1) regardless of mundane aspect considerations, so one can't be definitive. Yes, in my best and worst traits, it's one of my most descriptive aspects.

Jim, correct me if I am wrong. Since I have known you on your forum, I think you were experiencing the “torment” of the 0,07 mundo partile Mars-Neptune 90 in Indiana from a cultural standpoint; but when you moved to LA you lost most of this “torment” by moving into a much different culture suited much more to your way of thinking and philosophical beliefs. I know for sure in LA you moved into a much better receptive climate for astrological things.

Jim wrote:

What's particularly interesting, though, is that at birthplace the mundane aspect is my single closest aspect, but I lost that distinction whem I moved to California.

Jim, you taught me that partile aspects “Reign Supreme.” The way I see this aspect issue we are discussing: When you moved to LA, you left this reigning “tormenting” partile mundane Mars-Neptune behind you.

Jim wrote:

One of the most interesting features of mundane aspects in a nativity is how they shift with locale.

Indeed Jim!!! I find it most interesting, just like we find Bagdad’s 1991 Capsolar most interesting with its partile mundane aspects. When Mike completes his program, I think you should write combined with Mike’s program an essay, when you find the time, on the possibility of how natives could possibly cancel out the malefic effects of a class 1/partile malefic mundane aspect from a birthplace local by moving to a different local. I think this has the possibility of making a world of difference beneficially for a native pertaining to malefic class 1/partile aspects born under a birthplace local.

Jim wrote:

These portray significantly different people! (I'd have surely been in real trouble if I'd stayed in my original location.)

Exactly Jim—I completely understand---changing locals from your birthplace has the great possibility for making a huge difference in the quality of a life.

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim wrote:

The Mars-Neptune square is close (Class 1) regardless of mundane aspect considerations, so one can't be definitive. Yes, in my best and worst traits, it's one of my most descriptive aspects.

Jim, correct me if I am wrong. Since I have known you on your forum, I think you were experiencing the “torment” of the 0,07 mundo partile Mars-Neptune 90 in Indiana from a cultural standpoint; but when you moved to LA you lost most of this “torment” by moving into a much different culture suited much more to your way of thinking and philosophical beliefs. I know for sure in LA you moved into a much better receptive climate for astrological things.

Yes, cultural issues were very much a part of it. However, I see that this is how astrology works: When one moves to a new location, it usually seems that some "condition" causes conditions to change - not just some magical "it's all different now!" - and it usually "makes sense" without astrology. However, the astrology nails it.

Consider: An unusually large number of U.S. Presidents have had Jupiter angular at birth. Of those who have not, a very large number of them had Jupiter angular for Washington. One could say that, "Well, Washington, DC is the only place they could live and be president, that's just where the job was located." However, the simple astrological truth is that they were likely to be more important and have greater esteem, power, and rank at the longitude of Washington, DC.

Since my native state has been one of the highest density Covid-19 outbreak areas (cultural aversion to masks etc. for political reasons), imagine if I had continued to live there with a 0°07' natal Mars-Neptune mundane square! I imagine this would have lead to a much increased chance of infection and serious illness.

BTW, you wrote of the environment tormenting me. I was also (and perhaps primarily) talking about the other side: I'm certain that I tormented my environment. It was mutual antipathy. I candidly admit that I have hurt people in my life, perhaps more due to Mars-Neptune behaviors than any other, and these traits were far stronger in me in my native state than after I left. When I look at the aspect mix for Indiana, I realize I could have become quite the criminal - or, at least, gotten in a lot more trouble (not the good kind!), suffered for it and caused more suffering to others, etc. if I'd stayed there.

Jim wrote:

What's particularly interesting, though, is that at birthplace the mundane aspect is my single closest aspect, but I lost that distinction when I moved to California.

Jim, you taught me that partile aspects “Reign Supreme.” The way I see this aspect issue we are discussing: When you moved to LA, you left this reigning “tormenting” partile mundane Mars-Neptune behind you.

Yes. That's especially true in predictive work where we are waiting for the time when a high-intensity concentration of energies peaks and comes to the fore. But prediction isn't my strongest interest, and it's also clear that in natal charts the subtler forces develop strongly as well. In a natal chart, the rule is probably more like, "Whatever is closest will dominate - no matter how strong or weak it is inherently." For example, if somebody had no aspects within 3° (a very rare condition), the 3-4° aspects would reign supreme in their nativity - would be the strongest forces in their character.

In my case, Mars squares Neptune ecliptically 2°45'. That's Class 1. It's my sixth-closest natal hard aspect; nonetheless, it is extremely strong, has a definite voice in who I am. No matter where I am in the world, it's going to have the strength of a Class 1 aspect, having more than 90% of its full strength. -- But at birthplace, the concurrent mundane aspect spikes that orb to 0°07', spikes it to 100% certainty of expression (100% of its strength). It also becomes the single strongest aspect in the chart, the leader in terms of which all the other aspects express. (In LA, that "leader" role is taken over by Uranus square Neptune.) So, in looking at my character and life pattern, we'll see the Mars-Neptune regardless, but in LA it isn't just pushing its way past all the others to get to the front.

Jim wrote:

One of the most interesting features of mundane aspects in a nativity is how they shift with locale.

Indeed Jim!!! I find it most interesting, just like we find Bagdad’s 1991 Capsolar most interesting with its partile mundane aspects. When Mike completes his program, I think you should write combined with Mike’s program an essay, when you find the time, on the possibility of how natives could possibly cancel out the malefic effects of a class 1/partile malefic mundane aspect from a birthplace local by moving to a different local. I think this has the possibility of making a world of difference beneficially for a native pertaining to malefic class 1/partile aspects born under a birthplace local.

There will be something on it in the relocation chapter of the 'masterwork' I plan to write. The point is pretty simple, though the math isn't simple at all. We have no way of displaying where these mundane aspects exist (e.g., on a map). We can only try one location after another by trial and error.

This topic is particularly interesting to me for the following reason: I take it as fundamental that you never lose your natal chart. For example, in moving to LA I gained angular Venus and Pluto but did not lose my natal foreground Moon (I'm quite lunar). From observation, natal mundane aspects seem an exception to this, requiring me to think a lot about it. Over the last couple of years, multiple observations have reiterated the seeming fact that the mundane framework - call it, perhaps, the "house framework," even if we don't deal with houses per se - is most connected to exterior manifestations. Not just the angles, though they are the chief examples, but, rather, the whole mundane framework. This makes sense because mundane aspects (like houses) are completely bound up in your specific location. - Now, this is true for angles, too, and one might ask why one doesn't lose natal angularity in moving (observation suggests that one does not), but it does seem that mundane aspects SPECIFICALLY are (let's call them) always local, even at the birth place - that there is something tenuous and temporary about them that lightens when one relocates and has time to change one's responses and behaviors. This is something new - and something quite exciting.

I only know for sure that, when I compare someone's mundane aspects at birthplace to mundane aspects at new residence, if I know enough about their life it's obvious that the aspects they have lost moving away from the birthplace and those they've gained at the new location characterize the different location. Also, since being persuaded that hard natal mundane aspects are equal to ecliptical ones in a birth chart, this means that the balance of what natal aspects you have can change when you move.

[SteveS]

Jim, mundane aspects are "new and exciting" thanks to your observations about em. If it was not for your writtings about em I would never have explored em in my personal work.