The "supreme fact of astrology"

[Jim Eshelman]

Garth Allen, "Your Powwow Corner," American Astrology September 1957:

...the supreme fact of astrology is that the mundane structure of any horoscope has a modifying effect on the intensity of all planetary forces... It is only in the zones centering around the three basic great circles (horizon, meridian and prime vertical) that the inhibiting pressures are relieved or removed

I wanted to post this quote because it doesn't get any simpler or definitive than that! He elaborated (with respect to transits in particular):

A promised or indicated event can more easily come to pass when the aspect is quite platic [non-partile] but in a strong position in the horoscope than when it is exactly partile and weakly situated. It is when the two conditions, closeness and angularity, occur simultaneously that a crisis is virtually inevitable.

This very accurately states what we've observed: That transits tend to peak when partile (and especially when exact) but, even when non-partile, they become a really big deal when they fall on angles of (say) the current lunar return. Furthermore, when exactness of aspect and close angularity combine, you get the outstanding emergence of events that he called "virtually inevitable."

[SteveS]

Exactly!!!! A pure essence of truth for Sidereal Astrology. Bradley taught us so much truth.

[Jim Eshelman]

...the supreme fact of astrology is that the mundane structure of any horoscope has a modifying effect on the intensity of all planetary forces... It is only in the zones centering around the three basic great circles (horizon, meridian and prime vertical) that the inhibiting pressures are relieved or removed

One interesting thing: Notice how he doesn't speak of the angles as strengthening so much as he speaks of the non-angular areas as inhibiting. Foreground is only described as relieving those inhibitions, as if an affirmative inhibition effect is the default condition.

Even though I speak of separate expression and suppression effects, I think I never before squarely noticed exactly what he was saying above.

[mikestar13]

Yeah I just noticed that. I'm more inclined to Jim's idea that there are both expressive and repressive forces of equal strength. So by the way Bradley states it, a planet would be most truly itself when unaspected exactly on an angle--I don't fully agree. IMHO a planet is most truly itself (by this I mean "less shaped by other factors") when unaspected in the center of the middleground where there is no net expressive or repressive pressure. An angular Mars for example indicates a person who is "more Mars" than the human norm--possibly to the level of too damn much Mars.

By analogy, pretend planets are tools and Mars is a hammer. With foreground Mars, the native is very capable at using the hammer and can always find their hammer ready to hand--but all problems can start to look like nails and a hammer is a poor choice when you need a screwdriver. Background Mars means the native's hammer is somewhere in the tool shed and must be searched for extensively and the native isn't that good with it anyway--so confronted with a nail--the native will reach for the screwdriver. Middleground Mars is a hammer in the tool sack the native carries: they have to rummage a bit but it isn't hard to find, and they are not expect but not incompetent at hammering. So they will hammer nails and not hammer screws.