Meridian & Horizon: I vs. Thou, or what....?

[Jim Eshelman]

I want to renew an inquiry and ask all of you to look in your natal chart collections and offer your views. I will state the question and my views in this first post, then do a planet-by-planet breakdown in the next ten posts, and invite your response to any of them.

Moon viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6115#p45323
Sun viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6115#p45324
Mercury viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6115#p45325
Venus viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6115#p45326
Mars viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6115#p45327
Jupiter viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6115#p45328
Saturn viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6115#p45329
Uranus viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6115#p45330
Neptune viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6115#p45331
Pluto viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6115#p45332

The original reason for this thread (when I thought of it waking up this morning) is that I'm still chasing the question of why the prime vertical seems to behave differently than the horizon and meridian. I wrote at considerable length on that here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=5508#p40512

But the other reason for this thread is to dig into something more of you may find interesting and sink your teeth into: Is there an interpretive difference between the varying angles? I'd be quite satisfied to come away with a clear sense of whether really there's an interpretive difference between the Meridian (M) and Horizon (H). - I've long acted as though there is a big difference but, really, is that malarky?

Some opening thoughts:

• The simplest interpretation of the angles' behavior is that there is no interpretive distinction between them, that they all (more or less equally) simply amplify the strength or expressiveness (I won't haggle that word at the moment) of a planet.
• I am completely persuaded that this is the primary behavior, but it may not be the exclusive behavior. For example, I've historically thought and said things like, "The main thing is that the planet is angular, period. Within that, you often can find other distinctions depending on which angle is involved, but don't get overly hung up on that." (For example, don't assume that planets on a lunar return Dsc is always going to be about a relationship, but don't be surprised if it is.)
• In solar and lunar ingresses, there seems no distinction at all. Mars is most often on angles of ingresses and quotidians for fires and Saturn for earthquakes, but the distribution across the different angles is pretty equal. There seems no difference.
• In natal charts, I've often thought that the distinctions are more obvious when more than one planet is foreground and they interact. For example, I only have one planet foreground - Moon on Descendant - so Moon has to serve "all my foreground needs," i.e., show a strong lunar expression in all the areas of my life. I can't treat it just as expressing Descendant themes. However, in people with oppositions across the horizon, after acknowledging that all the foreground planets are ultimately descriptive of them and their character, there does seem to be a "self vs. others" distinction of the different planets. Or a planet on IC aspecting a planet on Asc often will have (more than usual) a clear description of how parent relationships or conditions in the formative environment (IC) impact and shape one's character and self-view (Asc). - Possibly I've been fooling myself, but it does seem that effects are more common in these cases when I can get sufficient details.
• In summary, some phenomena and examples suggest that there is no interpretive distinction between the angles at all, while other phenomena and examples suggest that there is an interpretive distinction. Thus, for this thread, I re-enter agnosticism on the question.

If there are distinctions, what are they? Let's itemize the theories first. We have, of course, the traditional meanings of the angular houses (1st, 4th, 7th, 10th). I think, though (especially since, at the moment, I'm more interested in distinguishing Meridian vs. Horizon than the individual angles) that the best place to start is with the German schools' M vs. H distinctions. They're the reason for the title of this thread because the gist is that the Meridian is considered to relate to "I" or "self" and the Horizon to "others, relationship, and environment [surroundings]." To break it down more exactly:

• Alfred Witte described Midheaven (Meridian) as: "The soul of the native per se, the so-called 'Ego,' therefore the most important point in the horoscope. The 'I,' the Spiritual. Intellectual and social impressions."
• Witte described Ascendant (Horizon) as: "Acquaintances. Connections with surroundings. The place."
• Reinhold Ebertin updated and simplified Midheaven (Meridian) to: "Ego-consciousness and spiritual awareness." In support notes, he wrote, "The individualized man. The aim of life... Ego-consciousness, the function of the brain proper... The individual."
• Ebertin updated and simplified Asc (Horizon) as: "The Personality. (Environment.)" However, in practice this often explicitly included relationship. Under Sociological Correspondence, he wrote, "The Ego in relationship with other people, particularly with persons of the environment."
• I notice that there is a strong similarity (not exact match) to how I consider Sun (cf. Meridian) and Moon (cf. Horizon). This is even more intriguing given centuries-old symbolism that a vertical line is masculine and a horizontal line feminine. (That's ultimately sexist, since it ultimately says that in sex a man's job is to "stand upright," and a woman's job is to "get horizontal;" but it's still noteworthy as a long-standing metaphor.) I have tried, on and off for decades, to interpret planets on Meridian as more solar and those on Horizon as more lunar, but it usually hasn't been persuasive to me.

The question, of course, is whether these interpretive distinctions actually apply.

Finally, in looking at the German distinctions of these axes in terms of introversion and extroversion specifically as used in Jung's typologies (more or less as they've been extended in Myers-Briggs). This I vs. E distinction will be confusing to most people who haven't looked and thought deeply through Jung's original work (or the M-B later discussions). This has nothing (very little) to do with whether one "is an extrovert" or "is an introvert" in the casual, popular sense. The introversion or extraversion is of the examined psychological function, which doesn't per se "make a person an introvert" etc. Introversion of a function means that it is applied to the perception or judgment of the subject, which is more or less oneself, while the extraversion of a function means that it is applied to the perception or judgement of the object, meaning more or less what one experiences (on which one places attention) outside of oneself.

For example, if the Thinking function is introverted, one is more focused on one's own thoughts and their organization, while an extraverted Thinking function is reasoning and organizing facts, i.e., the information about one in the world. An extraverted Sensation function is perceiving through the physical senses that are especially focused on what they can sense, observe, handle, etc. outside of oneself - "real world" oriented - while an introverted Sensation function is equally concerned with physical sensory data but mostly finds it within oneself in, say, the form of memory.

These exact details aren't important to the current conversation but, if you're interested, are reasonably summarized from Jung's writings here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_c ... _functions
For the current thread, I'm more interested in communicating what it means for a psychological function to be extraverted or introverted in Jung's thinking, because - if the German descriptions of the angles are correct - Meridian would seem to be connected to what Jung called the subject and Horizon to what he called the object. That is (if the above theories of the angles have merit), a planet on the Meridian would be expected to express strongly especially in terms of an introverted expression of the planet's function, while a planet on the horizon would be expected to show as an extraverted expression of the planet's function. (Remember: These are NOT the casual meanings of the I & E words.) This would lead to thinking through what introverted vs. extraverted expression of the different planetary functions means.


Here, then, is what I will do in the next 10 posts. I will give the Meridian (M) vs. Horizon (H) root interpretations from Ebertin; may make observations about whether this fits an introverted or extraverted expression of the planet's root psychological function; and then will tap my recent observations (caveat: on small amounts of data) from the planet angularity project threads, where there did seem to be angle distinctions. BTW, the most obvious differences (going from memory) was a greater strength or ownership at the positive end of each axis, and lesser at the negative end, which could be either a strength matter or from each end having an interpretation difference. After lining up this raw information, perhaps we'll be in a place to knock it around a bit? - Please join in.

[Jim Eshelman]

On Meridian (Ebertin): "One's own soul." - A deep soul expression, impressionability, a changeable character.

On Horizon (Ebertin): "The personal relationship to other people." Inclination to go out of one's way personally to satisfy others, a love of change and variety, changing mood. (It goes on to describe positive and negative responses to people and things in the environment.)

His Meridian Moon is a mixture of objective and subject focus, speaking primarily of deep internal emotional and other patterns - response, adaptability, and plasticity within, toward the subject. It does extravert, through its implied strong response to external impressions and general changeability in behavior. - His Horizon Moon is utterly extraverted in a pure Jung sense, the response and adaptability being to things outside of oneself.

Let's compare this to actual examples. The following are from my notes in the Projects threads. Number of examples was small and I only took first impressions:

My first impression of Moon on Asc famous people, regardless of what they did in their lives, is a soft, gentle facial demeanor. Most of them reflect an impression of empathy. Among people I know personally, this is less obvious but not wholly missing in most of them (starkly missing in a few of them). What stands out most to me in the personal examples is an intense curiosity most of them show in their expression - nearly the same as Mercury but with the interesting variation that it looks like they are ready to be fed. This might be a bias in the people I personally know, but it's unmistakable in most of them, like they are hungry for information and waiting for the bottle!

By contrast, Moon on Desc, first, has mostly famous people on my list and they don't have that soft, gentle demeanor most of the time. It is certainly a different crowd and much less "soft" in several ways. The few people on my list that I personally know with Moon setting all have nice smiles but their default expression is stern, almost distracted in the sense that really busy people have their minds on many things.

So yes, there is some Asc-Dsc contrast with the Moon setting people less openly lunar.

Moon on MC: Personal cases are curiously almost hyperactive (I think it's hyper-responsive), four women with similar body language, response, default presentation.

Moon on IC personal cases are hard to categorize together; the public cases hold several people in government (with an impression of public service mindedness), including five U.S. presidents - a stunning number, actually - and other military and government figures. Interestingly, all the presidents had to deal with severe economic crises. (Is this an IC/4th House trait, or just an expression of their lunar nature?)

[Jim Eshelman]

On Meridian (Ebertin): "Individuality, the goal or object of life." Well-developed ego-consciousness (ego-distinction).

On Horizon (Ebertin): "One's personal attitude to other people." Gaining recognition, endeavor and industry, the desire to become important. (It goes on with positive and negative expressions of these points, especially regarding interaction with others and standing as a specific being within the environment.)

The introversion vs. extraversion of the solar function is totally evident here. With M, the need to be a singled-out and distinctive being rests primarily with the subject, one's own sense of distinctive identity and direction. With H, Ebertin's description is all about the need to be a distinctive being within the objective field, the environment and interpersonal milieu.

Let's compare this to actual examples. The following are from my notes in the Projects threads. Number of examples was small and I only took first impressions. What I see in the notes below is that Sun-Horizon clearly meets expectations set above, while Sun-Meridian (perhaps due to shortage of examples) doesn't make a clear, distinctive statement.

To a great extent (but not invariably), Sun on Ascendant people I know are bold, forthright... I would most say they are willing to step forward and do a thing, represent an idea, etc. This doesn't mean they are aggressive in a martial way (some are), but they especially don't seem held back from stepping forward. They don't always inspire confidence by their appearance and bearing on first impression: about half of them do, and then the rest tend to on only getting to know them a little. Among the famous, though, Sun on Ascendant overflows with power, command, confidence, regal regard...

There is no less power command in Sun on Descendant... but there is a different quality I haven't fully identified (or which doesn't fit all of them: e.g., there is more of a gentle understating in most of the leaders, except we then have Hitler).

The "don't seem held from stepping forward" fits Sun on Descendant examples also except a few of them seem to first sit back and watch for a while. I don't at all see that they are more relationship-focused than Sun-rising people - in fact, some of the best connectors I know are on my Sun Rising list (though the most obvious examples have Venus-ruled Suns) - whereas the Sun Setting people, if anything, lean toward being a little more preoccupied with themselves in any interchange. The old phrase "surrender of selfhood to others or to relationship" does not apply. (This is even true of the those with Venus-ruled Suns.)

I only have one person on my current list of personal acquaintances with Sun on MC, and I only knew her for a brief time (a long time ago). Adding famous people are several known to readily speak up and, by their actions and persistence, more or less demand that people pay attention to them. Actually, that trait is present with people I personally know with Sun on IC, but in a quieter way that implies self-confidence (dare I say they've set a solid foundation first?)...

Sun on EP is a mostly bold group with many characteristics already mentioned - but more than "willing to step in" I'm inclined to say "insists on inserting themselves," with a particular insistence that they have their own voice and it's heard. (Depending on their level of self-confidence, this is either confident and grounded in honest ability or over-compensating.) Sun on WP is the strangest of the bunch and (at the risk of over-simplifying on five examples) all seem to have a measure of not being listened to by others (leaving them either defensive and over-compensating or just deciding to work harder).

[Jim Eshelman]

On Meridian (Ebertin): "One's one individual outlook. Self-knowledge." Ego-conscious acting, thinking and meditating on things, etc.

On Horizon (Ebertin): "One's own personal attitude toward other people. Urge for personal contact with others, pleasure from conversation. Thoughts about others (supportive or critical).

Mercury should resemble the Jung's Thinking function and, therefore, give us a closer comparison. Here, with M Mercury is entirely subject-focused, resembling Jung's Introverted Thinking in the basics. With H, Ebertin barely hints at the objectifying of the giving and receiving of information in the environment, but it seems buried in the idea.

Let's compare this to actual examples. The following are from my notes in the Projects threads. Number of examples was small and I only took first impressions. The limited concrete facts below do tend to support (at least somewhat) the I/E distinctions.

...I have tentatively observed that there may be a distinction between (what we might call) the active and passive poles of each angular axis in natal astrology, where the planet's needs are equally strong across all angles but the active end (Asc, MC, EP, maybe Z) has a more active identification and forthright, "in your face" expression, while the passive end (Dsc, IC, WP, maybe N) has less identification (maybe active disidentification), containment (with the IC: covert, hidden) as a layer....

Mercury on MC examples I have are a strange group. Impressions immediately start rising when I look at the names but I'm not sure I want to say more than that there is great curiosity, which motivates a great range of parts of their lives. I can't really tell a difference (on quick inspection) from the Mercury on IC people except that Mercury on IC people are broadly private: Even if in the public's eye, they are private people.

I have a huge list of Mercury rising people. Those that I know personally have all the usual listed Mercury traits... they look like my standard Mercury angular paragraph. Of public figures, the traits obvious knowing someone personally are obvious, but they are all great communicators, widely written authors, voices that people listen to, people who created communication systems, authors who roll out one book after another. It's quite an obvious theme.

I also have a big list for Mercury setting. Is there a difference? Yes, for those I know personally the traits are quite there (they are curious, wired people etc.) but more private - they aren't as out front. They fulfill their form of expression quite fully but usually behind private office doors. However, among the famous, there is the same most obvious trait for Mercury rising - voices that people listen to! - no particular difference... "voices that catch the public's ear and attention."

[Jim Eshelman]

On Meridian (Ebertin): "Individual love." A rich and deep feeling of love. Affectionate disposition, kindness, benevolence, vs. vanity, self-admiration.

On Horizon (Ebertin): "A harmonious personality." Affectionate behavior towards others, a sense of beauty and good taste. (The rest is positive and negative expressions of Venus in the context of relationship mostly.)

With H, the extraverted expression Venus in the environment and through relationship is clear. With M, it does seem introverted, though I think there are deeper ideas to develop here - presuming the theory is valid in the first place.

Let's compare this to actual examples. The following are from my notes in the Projects threads. Number of examples was small and I only took first impressions. From the observations below, Venus-Horizon does seem to extravert the Venus function, while Venus-Meridian (as far as I can tell from this) centers on innate, subject-centered Venus expression (i.e., introverted) that shows in specific outward behaviors.

...I have tentatively observed that there may be a distinction between the active and passive poles of each angular axis, where the planet's needs are equally strong across all angles but the active end (Asc, MC, EP, maybe Z) has a more active identification and forthright, "in your face" expression, while the passive end (Dsc, IC, WP, maybe N) has less identification (maybe active disidentification), containment (with the IC: covert, hidden) as a layer.

Venus rising personal examples are all people with Venus expression but not always Venus to the core. [This is quite important to the current inquiry!] I think they all have no idea how aggressive they seem. The public examples are most obvious to me for people who want a rich, elegant lifestyle... I think my private examples also have this, one example being a single mom who raised her daughter on a shoestring and eventually married the love of her life who just happened to be enormously rich, and she immediately switched to being "a laidy," as the Cockney might say.

Venus setting does have a different feel, but I may have too few cases. The specific character I see in my Venus rising group isn't there. There are some great examples of something quite opposite, e.g., Patty Hearst who was born to great wealth and became identified, for a time, with the opposite end of the spectrum. Or a great military figure, R.C. Firebrace, who in fact had a Venus character (kind, enjoying a good time, etc.) and is best known for an ugly war (though much of his actual involvement was diplomatic). The one U.S. president is known for passivity (Pierce). Maybe there is disidentification with Venus exteriors, not caring much for the surroundings in which they live. (Or maybe I'm over-interpreting.)

Venus on MC, in my list, is primarily people known for great kindness and gentleness. Even the one extremely wealthy person on my list doesn't wear it on his sleeve (but does always have beautifully presented cuffs). On all of these lifestyle issues, I see no real difference between MC and IC, but on the IC I notice that (along with some gentle people to whom it is deeply important that they cause no harm) a sudden appearance of [examples of] murders and cruelty. What suddenly happened here... again, it's something like having the real Venus needs and traits, including attractiveness-charisma, but somehow disidentifying, not externalizing, etc.?

[Jim Eshelman]

On Meridian (Ebertin): "Ego-conscious action." Concentration on an aim or objective, the power to succeed in life, independence.

On Horizon (Ebertin): "A fighting spirit." Advancement in life through force. - Further discussion moves into martial behaviors in social or relationship contexts always with regard to "out in the world."

Ebertin's treatment is not so obviously I/E in the sense we've been seeing. With H, it easily moves into interpersonal sense, with M he develops more in terms of traditional MC themes. If the theoretical approach I'm exploring is legit, we expect Mars-M to be power needs, competition, and domination focused on the subject, which probably would take the form of needing to ensure one's own intrinsic power and vertical dominance, whereas Mars-H would be the same forces expressing into and against objects in the social and physical environment.

Let's compare this to actual examples. The following are from my notes in the Projects threads. Number of examples was small and I only took first impressions. From the observations below, Mars-Horizon seems clearly extraverted (with Dsc a bit strange and needing more attention to understand; but it sounds projected, with object-focus). And I think Mars-Meridian is consistent with what we'd expect from subject-focus. EP-WP resembles H more than it resembles M.

Half the angular Mars presidents had it rising: They are all quite good examples of the planet. We also find murders and aggressive business figures. There is clearly much ferocious, aggressive, competitive, confident action (and often physicality) with this Mars rising group.

Mars setting feels different. We still have a couple of presidents (both with strong military careers) and one murderer, but also victims of violence. Some seem to be in denial of (or actively resisting) the Mars expression, wanting peace or actively ambivalent. This may be too few examples to generalize.

Mars on MC, among the famous, shows three strong, commanding, willful leaders: Pres. Roosevelt, Pres/Gen Eisenhower, and England's King George III. In contrast, Mars on IC has some of the same flavor but (like Descendant) some weakness or passive expression comes in...

I have many more examples and there does seem a similar EP-WP contrast to what Asc-Dsc and MC-IC have shown, where WP often (not always) has more containment or reticence, or something along those lines. For example, Mars on EP includes a confrontational-toned physical trainer and an aggressive macho gay activist from back in the 'take the fight to the streets at night' days, while examples of Mars on WP include two highly accomplished, effective women who, however, prefer a softer personal style. (I could include the porn actress I know with Mars on WP, whose roles are clearly physical but favoring very passive parts.)

Tentatively: There may be a distinction between (what we might call) the active and passive poles of each angular axis in natal astrology, where Mars needs are equally strong across all angles but the active end (Asc, MC, EP, maybe Z) has a more active identification and forthright, "in your face" expression, while the passive end (Dsc, IC, WP, maybe N) has less identification (maybe active disidentification), containment (with the IC: covert, hidden) as a layer.

[Jim Eshelman]

On Meridian (Ebertin): "Conscious of aim or objective in life." Optimism, contentment, a noble soul, striving for success, strong desire to be important in the world, professional advance.

On Horizon (Ebertin): "A harmonious personality, a pleasant or agreeable manner." Goes deeper into one's advantageous behavior toward others especially in an effort to be important.

Not bad on I/E breakout but needing some more work. As with most of these, Ebertin's interpretation of the H connection shows the needs (in this case, ambition, social standing, esteem) directed into relationship and environment. For M, we would expect the same directed to the subject, which (if Ebertin's observations are sound) would indeed lead to acquiring esteem for oneself through elevated, giving contributions or other acts. Not bad, I suppose.

Let's compare this to actual examples. The following are from my notes in the Projects threads. Number of examples was small and I only took first impressions. The examples below more or less reflect what the theory expects, but are too imprecise to be clear. Adding minor angles makes it even less clear.

I don't see much difference between Asc and Dsc except that I could consent to thinking Dsc less likely to own and wholly identify with the principle (and a little more likely to be humbler and more soft-spoken in their presentation - though with some notable exceptions). Jupiter Asc is more likely to affirm a sense of self-importance by how they carry themselves, Jupiter Dsc is quieter about it. (I think the difference is presentation only, not a matter of how important they actually consider themselves.)

MC/IC is a less obvious difference. Four U.S. presidents stand out on IC, and a lot of soft graciousness, but MC doesn't lack this.

Zenith-Nadir, again not much. Interestingly both groups share some strong examples of a trait that appears here and there with Jupiter anyway: Wanting to be known as an expert.

EP-WP isn't a big difference where I know the character, but it's interesting (but on a small sample) that all the presidents and a monarch (plus the "King of Late Night") appear on EP, no such people on WP in this list.

[Jim Eshelman]

On Meridian (Ebertin): "Hindered growth and development." Long drawn out suffering. Inhibited or slowed development.

On Horizon (Ebertin): "An inhibited personality." Feeling inhibited or frustrated. Early maturity, gaining experience, suffering from limits, a wrong outlook on life.

I think these are narrow (a suitable Saturn word). If the I/E view of modelling the German view of the angles is true, we might expect Saturn to resemble (but not match) Jung's Sensation function. Saturn is the material needs, and extraverted would mean managing material, "the world is real if you can knock on it" substance (and things coming from that managing, controlling, structuring, preserving). Introverted Saturn would seem to be the same applied subjectively, with a strong component of personal survival and perhaps other things like holding oneself to task. - This all needs to be compared to actual cases, of course.

In the Saturn Project thread, I didn't record any angle-distinction notes.

[Jim Eshelman]

On Meridian (Ebertin): "The power of assertion." Going one's own way in life, extraordinary or unusual objectives or aims, success through the display of unusual energy.

On Horizon (Ebertin): "A quick response to the influence of the environment." Unrest, tending to scatter one's energies, nervous haste. An unstable, original, quickly responding personality, love of change and variety (thus also inconsistent, irritable).

Uranus embodies the need for freedom and renewal. Uranus-H above is a good example of applying the need for renewal to the object - the environment, social contexts - and the behavior pattern that keeps doing that. Uranus-M would seem (on this model) to be the need to feel inwardly free and especially to keep the sense of oneself mobile, renewing, rediscovering.

Let's compare this to actual examples. The following are from my notes in the Projects threads. Number of examples was small and I only took first impressions. The notes below do suggest Uranus-Horizon expressed especially in social contexts (object-focused). Uranus-Meridian examples seem most to align with "wanting to hold fast to being an individual," which seems more subject-oriented. This time, EP axis more resembles Horizon.

Most of my 14 Uranus rising examples are clear examples of people living "out of bounds," sometimes surprising (often shocking!) others, though this is not invariable. (Where it isn't as evident, I think the people are better at keeping their actions "out of the newspapers".) Most seem quite willing to be seen and known for this "breakout" behavior.

I also find stark examples of Uranus setting who, by behavior, quite openly declare "I am sooooo different," so I'd consider that basic to their character. However quite a few of Uranus setting people also were seen as quiet, "behaved," a little boring (even though they really weren't!), so there does seem to be a sense of "rolling it back" and being less obvious for about half of them.

Only four of my examples have Uranus on MC. There is a sense of "striving to have a voice," including one woman whose behavior was marked by trying to get others to recognize her contribution, Anne Frank who is best known for just trying to give voice to her experience, and a man who, knowing he was dying, took strong steps to see that his original contributions survived him. It may be too general an observation and based on too few examples, but I mention since it seems evident at the moment. - My three Uranus on IC examples have nothing obvious in common.

My four Uranus on EP examples all have a sense of launching themselves on the world to grab attention and bring something different. [This suggests that EP is more like Asc than MC.] In contrast, my three Uranus on WP examples seem to have gone out of their way not to be too visible in their unorthodoxy (i.e., seemed very straight-laced, but I happen to know they weren't). This is the first angular pole where Uranus clearly behaves in opposite ways (in terms of visibility) on opposite poles.

I also only have three on the Zenith - all into offbeat things, but you have to really know them to think them offbeat personalities, and all have a sense of wanting to "control the territory" around them. - I see nothing in common with my three Uranus on Nadir examples.

[Jim Eshelman]

On Meridian (Ebertin): "Insecurity, uncertainty, lack of ego-consciousness." Aimlessness, lack of purpose and direction, lack of self-confidence.

On Horizon (Ebertin): "An impressionable person." Sensitive, sympathetic, compassionate (week, no resistance). Inability to succeed in life, open to exploitation by others, deceiving or cheating others.

Neptune is the need and power to forge reality. In broad terms, I think the descriptions of the above show Neptune-H as uncertain and malleable reality in the object (error or uncertainty or changing landscape in relationship and the objective world overall), and Neptune-M shows uncertainty and malleable reality in the subject (no clear sense of who one is or any firm center). Right or wrong, it fits the definitions well enough.

On the Neptune Project thread, I made no angle-distinction observations.

[Jim Eshelman]

I think I'll skip the Ebertin input on Pluto because I don't think he understood Pluto at all. If the I/E model relates, then Pluto's need for authenticity and isolation would express most obviously with the Meridian, where "isolated self" and "authentic self, expressing the 'hidden one' seed in one's depths," etc. would be most obvious. Pluto-Horizon would apply the same to the objective (to the outside world and social interactions, for example) and, on first impression, would be more the reformer or social pot-stirrer.

I didn't do any angle breakouts in the Pluto Project thread.