Mundane aspects in synastry

[Jim Eshelman]

This post is the start of an inquiry, something we need to learn that within perhaps a year we'll be able to investigate easily.

The heart and soul of synastry is interaspects between the two charts. We have long ago validated the ecliptical aspects. Given what we know about other areas of astrology (such as lunar returns), we eventually need to sort out whether mundane aspects are equally operative.

If they ARE important, this introduces a new dimension of complexity. (Hopefully it will simplify drawing the right conclusion eventually, but at the beginning it adds complexity.) The biggest complexity is that mundane aspects between two sets of planets are dependent on the angular framework in which they fall. My planets inside your chart (your angle and house framework) form different mundane aspects than your planets inside of my angular framework.

We won't have to worry about the math. Mikestar13 is going to take care of that eventually in TMSA 0.6. He's already said that in the synastry report, the planet sets under the chart will show each person's planets in the mundane framework of the other person's chart. This, in turn, will allow mundane aspects between the charts to be calculated. The math and basic sorting won't be a problem for anyone,

But interpretation! - Oh, my, this introduces new complexities that are actually pretty exciting. Suppose, for example, there is an aspect that only exists when my planets are placed inside your chart (and doesn't exist ecliptically or when your planets are placed inside my chart). What does this mean? Does it mean that the aspect only exists for you, because it's inside your chart, inside your reality? Or only exists for me because it's my planets now having different patterns? Or exist bilaterally (that would be the most boring)? Does the meaning change according to the depth of the relationship (how "into" the other person each of us is)?

This, of course, presumes that they are valid at all. We can't assume they do. We need to find out, using lots and lots of charts.

[Jim Eshelman]

There is the separate question of whether (if valid) this is valid only for the birthplace of each, or for that AND the local angles, etc. If we think of each piece of this as a separate chart, we could be adding four "new charts" to the mix. (It's probably better, therefore, just to think of these in terms of aspect lists.)

Marion's and my charts were the obvious first example for me to check. I found some terribly interesting things supporting the mundane aspect theory, some puzzling things casting doubt on it, and a lot of questions about the issue of whose point of view is invoked by the aspects.

Our ecliptical aspects are sparse compared to other relationships; in fact, if you leave out octiles, there are very few, though they tend to be quite right. The first thing I always think of is not a degree aspect at all, but the fact that our Moons are in obvious signs - and I've always been more drawn to Leo (and secondarily Aquarius) Moons than any others. I next think of my Venus conjunct her Descendant - her Asc is (to the degree) opposite the Asc of my first wife and this ecliptical Venus conjunction with the horizon is an important feature of both. (My Venus also conveniently squares her Mars. My Pluto is involved.) Her Uranus semi-square my Sun (27') is one of the most descriptive aspects (and I've had Sun-Uranus connections of one or another type with most of my most important relationships). Though four and a half degrees wide, her Sun opposite my Jupiter is another basic feature of our relationship, the usual Sun-Jupiter features of mutual respect, esteem, generosity, instinctively looking out for the other's well-being, etc. Locally in LA, her Ascendant is almost the exact minute of my Moon while my Asc highlights her Mars-Uranus (my local Asc is square her natal Asc, meaning the same Venus-Pluto to Mars etc. is on both sets).

Those are the ecliptical aspects.

When I look at our mundane aspects, I get an early surprise: Our Moons, in opposite signs but 11°25' from exact opposition aspect, are suddenly exactly opposite. --

In her natal chart:
18°47' 5H - her Moon
18°56' 11H - my Moon

In her local chart:
25°57' 12H - my Moon
27°01' 6H - her Moon

This is remarkable! - OTOH, it isn't, in the sense that the interpretation I would give to the exact Moon-Moon opposition is the same interpretation I'd give to Moons simply being in opposite signs. For the aspect, I'd just say, "yes, but more of it!" but I don't know that it would affect my judgment of the charts. There is also the question raised above: These only happen in HER charts, natal and local. How do we interpret that? One theory is that the experience only exists in her reality, inside of her chart. Another theory is that this is really the behavior of my planets. I don't think I can judge that this aspect only exists for one of us and not the other but, of course, that could be because the sign opposition alone plus her local Asc 0°04' from my Moon gives essentially the same things.

Moving on to the Sun-Jupiter interchange: This also is hard to judge the qualitative effect. Sun-Jupiter interchanges tend to be quite reciprocal, no particular sense that one person is doing the respecting and rewarding but that it's two-way. We do get a quantitative difference: The aspect has always been so obvious between us that I've not hesitated to give it a 4-5° orb, but mundanely it tightens up a lot:

In her local chart:
12°12' 1H - her Jupiter
13°47' 7H - my Sun

In her natal:
6°26' 12H - her Jupiter
7°43' 6H - my Sun

Again, they only appear in her chart but the nature of the aspect is so reciprocal and, besides, it exists (widely) ecliptically.

Are there any close mundane aspects that do NOT appear ecliptically? Yes. Her Uranus square my Venus has more than a 5° orb ecliptically and I'm inclined to disregard it, but in my local chart the square is 2°09' mundanely. I think that's the only one that isn't within 5° ecliptically but forms a close mundane aspect. The aspect is quite descriptive of us (though half of that would be covered by the Sun-Uranus ecliptical interchange).

[Jim Eshelman]

So, I'm tentatively ready to accept the reality of these aspects (that Moon-Moon mundane opposition really holds my attention) but with a lot of questions. The biggest question is whether these only operate inside one person's pov. (That would be an awesome discovery if confirmed: The two people in a relationship routinely experience some aspects of the relationship differently. It would be awesome to have a technical way to track that, stuff that only exists for one of them and doesn't appear for the other. But it might not be true.) It does appear that the local charts are AT LEAST as accurate as the birthplace charts (and they might be even better). There is also a question of how these are to be ranked for strength (how important they are: in other places where mundane aspects have been found valid, they seem interchangeable with ecliptical aspects).

Going chart by chart:

Marion's planets in Jim's natal
mSaturn op. jPluto 0°38'
mNeptune co. jMercury 1°06'
mVenus op. jMercury 1°12'
mSaturn sq. jVenus 1°52
mMars sq. jVenus 2°50'

Three of these exist ecliptically (close: Class 1). Her Saturn to my Venus-Pluto is about 3° (give or take) ecliptically and much closer here. I'm uncomfortable with that, given the orbs. For example, Venus-Saturn is just strong enough ecliptically to make sense: Not a dominant, defining aspect, sharing its commitment and devotion features without the repressive features. Saturn-Pluto is not a typical synastry aspect and easier to interpret as if it were a transit: This doesn't make sense as an overall description of the relationship.

Therefore, I'm not yet convinced this view contributes to the description. Also, taking just these five aspects as a descriptor (which is pretty artificial since, of course, the ecliptical aspects also apply), it describes a pretty hard life and hard relationship (with some softer exceptions). With the caveat that one example doesn't prove anything, this one seems misleading.

Jim's planets in Marion's natal
jMoon op. mMoon 0°09'
jVenus co. mNeptune 0°10'
jVenus op. mVenus 0°15'
jSun op. mJupiter 1°18'
jSaturn op. mVenus 1°49'
jSaturn co. mNeptune 2°02'

As mentioned above, the exact Moon-Moon opposition is stunning. - Some of these aspects exist ecliptically, but only wider (Class 2), including Sun-Jupiter and Saturn to Venus-Neptune. These were discussed (more or less) above. What interest me are the others: my Venus mundanely "moves back" to align with her Venus-Neptune. Venus-Venus really fits, Venus-Neptune fits at times.

Nonetheless, this alignment starts to bring out THREE Venus-Saturn combinations, including a < 2° natal Venus-Saturn conjunction that I acquire in this framework. This simply seems like to much Venus-Saturn. I think we wouldn't have gotten together if these accurately reflected our chemistry. While there may come some time in the future that one of us has to make great sacrifice to (for example) care for the other, it's not descriptive of the relationship overall.

The Moon-Moon above is its strongest mark. This aspect mix taken in isolation seems tragic - the Sun-Jupiter merely making it epic tragedy like a myth-driven Wagner opera. Again, I'm skeptical of this representation.

[Jim Eshelman]

The same process, but for the local nativities, is more promising, at least at firsts glance. Let's break them down.

Marion's planets in Jim's local nativity
mMars sq. jVenus 0°36'
mSaturn sq. jPluto 0°41'
mUranus sq. jVenus 2°09'
mMercury op. jVenus 2°11'
mMercury sq. jPluto 2°35'

Venu-Mars also exists (close) ecliptically. Mercury to Venus-Pluto is Class 2 ecliptically and putting it much stronger here is impressively descriptive. Saturn to Pluto appears as before (leaving me equally puzzled what it might mean) but - notice the difference! - not Saturn-Venus (which would be nearly 6°).

Instead, we have Marion's Uranus square my Venus. This is quite descriptive.

This connection to the local chart brings important angularities also but - going just from the aspects above - this appears to be a very good description of our relationship, our history getting together, etc.

Does this exist only from one point of view? Maybe. (Thats the best I can do: maybe.) It certainly reflects my experience (and these occur inside my local chart). I think they are not averse to Marion's experience, but mostly because several of these aspects are reciprocal (i.e., you can't have enjoyable deep-digging discovery conversations unless both people are having them).

Jim's planets in Marion's local nativity
jMoon op. mMoon 1°04'
jPluto op. mMoon 1°28'
jSun op. mJupiter 1°35'

This all fits but it might not be all that relevant that it fits.

First, we get the Moon-Moon. If we disregard the ill-fitting example of my planets within her birthplace cusps, then this is the first place we get the close opposition aspect (though opposite signs may be enough). Sun-Jupiter was discussed above (exists wider ecliptically, tightened mundanely, "works" either way).

That leaves the Pluto-Moon aspect. Marion has a natal partile Moon-Pluto conjunction. I have one by occasional paran and, in her local cusps, my opposition is almost partile. Adding an interchange to the picture just pumps it up more. It's fitting - the whole trio is fitting - though I could get by without it. Here are the positions:

24°29' 6H - my Pluto
25°57' 12H - my Moon
27°01' 6H - her Moon

[Jim Eshelman]

Tentative, first-impression conclusions:

1. There seems to be something here, at least something promising enough to encourage further looking.

2. To my great surprise, the local frameworks were far better than the birthplace frameworks. In fact, where one could distinguish the aspects from the ecliptical ones, the local frameworks were all solid and quite descriptive while the birthplace ones were suspect.