Progressing each chart to the other

[Jim Eshelman]

I've mentioned this several times - something I find often remarkably telling - the theory of progressing each person's chart to the moment and place of the other's birth. I just stumbled across what likely is the place I first learned about it (though it might have been another article years earlier) and thought I'd reproduce it. In the January, 1973 issue of American Astrology, in the "Many Things" section, someone asked about a popular text book rule for predicting marriage. Answering anonymously, Donald Bradley gave clear, patient reasons the rule was nonsense, then ended with these two paragraphs:

The kind of thinking that is the provenance of such nonsensical rules in astrology confuses what is culturally originated and what is horoscopically possible, i.e., natural. Despite ages-long attempts by every society to make it a sacrament, the institution of wedlock is a manmade rather than a celestially imposed happening. The 7th house does not show a marriage specifically and certainly does not depict the spouse per se, as such as your name isn't Brigham Young, Artie Shaw, or Solomon. It rather shows the attitude toward partnerships, the need for wedlock or lack of it, how close relationships fare, and so on.

Some highly competent astrologers feel there is much value in progressing the charts of two people to each other's respective birthdates, using the other's natal planets as transits. By progression we mean the secondary year-for-a-day system in which the whole diurnal rotation of the sky is taken into account (widely called the quotidian method). We have tested this approach and find it remarkable for the way it appears to define the significance of one person's role in the life of another, and vice versa. It is in this technique that factors such as One True Loves are appropriately pinpointed. And what is more, such an approach does not do violence to the logical faculties.

[Jim Eshelman]

I've surely given these examples before, but I'll rework them for attachment to this thread.

My chart progressed to Marion's birth moment has progressed Moon at 3°34' Cancer, 0°03' from my Jupiter and 0°14' from my Uranus. (Moon aspects seem especially powerful in this technique.) There is also a 0°39' Sun-Neptune conjunction (the "most marrying" aspect in natal charts, so it may show similar "absorption" or merging desire here) and, stunningly, natal Venus on quotidian WP. It may even be valid (it would be in a normal progessions-and-transits scenario) that my progressed Venus 5°07' Scorpio was a few minutes from her natal Descendant (i.e., from the "transiting Descendant" of the event for me). This is aside from the normal natal-to-natal and Novien-to-natal interchanges.

Her chart progressed to my birth moment had (on the surface, at least) a much less pleasant aspect, progressed Moon 0°34' from opposite my Saturn: Read this as transiting Saturn opposed natal Moon for the "event" of my birth. But it's more complicated since the same progressed Moon exactly trines her natal Moon and Pluto. The rest of what jumps out to me is her progressed Sun conjoined her own Ascendant 0°51' and quotidian EP conjoined her Moon.


My progressed chart for my first wife's birth has Moon 28°05' Pisces, partile square her Mars. In the best and (not quite) the worst senses, this was a defining aspect of our short marriage (but we already had loose Moon-Mars interchanges two directions in the nativities - but wide). Once again, my progressed (like natal) Venus conjoined her Ascendant (Janee and Marion have Ascendants exactly opposite each other). - I think the natal-to-natal fits better, but this one fits well enough. (There were no angle contacts.) - Her chart progressed to my birth is pretty minor (proportionate to the importance of that marriage across the range each of our lives), mostly marked by her progressed Mercury conjunct my Sun (0°26'), which fits the original context and the continuing relationship over the years.

[ODdOnLifeItself]

That's an interesting technique.

I just looked at my quotidian progression for when my Wife was born and the Moon is directly on the natal Node.

[Arena]

Using solar arcs direction?
That's what Bradley seems to be describing above.

[Jim Eshelman]

Using solar arcs direction? That's what Bradley seems to be describing above.

No, he explicitly said secondary progressions. (He explicitly said quotidians.)

Neither Fagan nor Bradley used solar arcs which were barely in the English-speaking world's awareness during their lives. Firebrace was a bit more mindful because he read German and paid close attention to the German astrological literature of the 1960s.

[Jim Eshelman]

Arena, as an example, your chart progressed to your ex's birth has your progressed Venus partile conjunct your Ascendant. (There was, of course, a reason the two of you were together in the first place, regardless of how it ended.) Your progressed Sun was almost in orb of square your Moon (1°03' - near miss?). Progressed Mars trine your Jupiter.

Your progressed (i.e., quotidian) IC was 1°14' from his Venus ("transiting Venus," so to speak).

Progressing his chart to the moment and place of your birth, his progressed Moon was 0°03' from his natal Descendant and 0°31' from sextile progressed Mars. He has a lot of smaller aspects that could be taken very generally as "something about a relationship happens," like a progressed Venus-Pluto sextile and the important square of his progressed Venus to natal Mars 0°45' and progressed Sun square natal MC 0°46'. But, surely most importantly, his quotidian MC 26°26' Pisces opposed his natal Saturn within a few minutes.

Oh, yeah, I almost missed (how could I miss this!):

24°55' Lib - p Mars
24°42' Can - t Mercury
25°01' Ari - t Moon
25°31' Can - p Asc

25°30' Vir - p Saturn
26°26' Pis - p MC
26°35' Vir - r Saturn

The angle contacts (one set of angles or another) alone tell a big story. So do the Moon aspects alone. And then there's the rest of the stuff. (This would all be interpreted as your presence being an "event" in his life of this complex nature.)

[Arena]

Ok. So they didn't use solar arcs. I keep forgetting how to do the quotidians in SF.

Thanks for the insights Jim. Yes there was a reason we got together and creating children is of course a huge thing. We had a very friendly and mostly easy-going relationship until the last couple of years. It's really too bad he had to get stuck in his anger which is coloring the years and communications after the split.

[Jim Eshelman]

Ok. So they didn't use solar arcs. I keep forgetting how to do the quotidians in SF.

In the settings box that floats near the top, click the Angle Progressions section and make sure Chart Angle Progression is set to Mean Quotidian. Also, make sure Q2 is picked instead of Q1. (I recommend these as default settings.) - You can also get there by Preferences > Edit Settings.

Once this setting is in place, just do a secondary progression. (The fastest way to this is to press the F4 key.)

[Danica]

I've only looked at a few examples of this before, was profoundly distressed by what was seen, and thereafter avoided to delve into it any further.

Have now done an actual more thorough check, including some relationships I know the intimate details of, which haven't been examined in this way previously -- the more I see, the more clear it becomes how *mind-blowingly accurate* this is.

- For some cases, it so plainly & directly reveals what the basic rx-rx and rx-Novien don't show, and it is undeniably there, shown by life itself in the in-your-face way, that it's literally hardly bearable to witness (... brings the condition of feeling like screaming, in an insane mixture of sheer pain & wonder ... it's 50 minutes after midnight here now, so not an appropriate time for that) ... Holy Nuit!!!

[Danica]

The approach I'm taking with it is:

Person's A progression to the time-and-place of person's B birth shows the person's A experience of the contact/relationship with the B.

In the progressed chart itself:
-- Moon's dynamic aspects within 1* with the s.p. planets
-- any other dynamic aspects within 1* degree which include an inner planet and don't exist as partil in the natal (of person A);
-- cnj/sq of progressed planets with Major angles in this chart, within 1* orb.

And the next layer, the natal of person B as "transits" to this progressed chart:
-- dynamic aspects within 1* orb solely, list of all of these (including cnj/sq of these to Major angles of the progressed chart).


P.S. the practical "downside" is that this can be used with full reliability only for accurate, precisely recorded birth times.

[Jim Eshelman]

The approach I'm taking with it is:

Person's A progression to the time-and-place of person's B birth shows the person's A experience of the contact/relationship with the B.

Yes, that's how I see it. The underlying premise - probably the single premise behind the whole of synastry by whatever approach - is that one person's moment and place of time represent the time and place of an "event" in the other's life. If you read that time and place as if you were forecasting an event for then and there, you'll likely describe the relationship correctly.

I read whatever I would count as a valid progression, which is partile major aspects within the progressions and from them to the natal, but emphasizing the dynamic aspects; any valid transits, which we mostly get from the standard synastry; and then top it off in summation with the quotidian angles to natal, progressed, or transit planets within 1°. Orbs might be slightly larger because sometimes utterly descriptive aspects are just outside what you might count (e.g., using 2° always includes them and is probably excessive). All this stuff matters but, usually, it is the progressed Moon aspects that seem to say more than anything else.

I think you're saying mostly the same thing.

Silly example I hadn't given: Anna-Kria and I were a couple for 21 years and (with some bumps and bruises) friends living under the same roof for years past that. My chart progressed to her birth gives progressed Sun opposite natal Moon, progressed Moon opposite natal Sun (just outside 1° orb) and transiting Venus within 1° of an angle (plus natal Neptune and Uranus). - I forget the details of her chart progressed to my birth, but i remember it culminated with her Sun-Moon conjunction on quotidian angle. (I gave mine and Marion's above, I think.)

I'm not sure every pair of charts can be effectively read using this technique. It feels like its main purpose is to mathematically single out The Ones That Matter Most from other relationships - good or bad - as if you were predicting outstanding events. I'm often amazed how one of The Ones That Mattered Most in someone's life was born the year progressed Sun reached a nearby aspect within the few years before or after birth.

[SteveS]

Jim, check me to see if I am doing this technique properly. I show my s.p Venus 1,08 conjunct my p MC. Correct?

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim, check me to see if I am doing this technique properly. I show my s.p Venus 1,08 conjunct my p MC. Correct?

For your chart progressed to the time and place of Gayle's birth? Yes, Venus 11°17' Virgo conjunct SNQ MC 12°26' Virgo. Under this theory, one would expect that contact to make a fundamental statement about the nature of the relationship

Gayle, in turn, had a partile (0°03') progressed Venus-Neptune conjunction when you were born and then - the complement of your Venus - had natal Mars on quotidian Descendant. But he really exciting aspect is how your Mars ("transiting Mars") bridges a not-quite-in-orb aspect that is otherwise perfect symbolism. (PS The 90° dial made this pop out, I might have missed it otherwise.)

28°54' Sag - Gayle's p Moon
29°50' Gem - Steve's Mars
0°05' Libra - Gayle's p Sun

I don't know how much we want to get into subtleties - there are two contacts with the Q angles that aren't really in orb, even if we stretch it to about 2°. But they're close and the form a very exact midpoint. Gayle has:

3°33' Aqu - r Jupiter
6°15' Aqu - p MC
9°49' Aqu - r Moon
Moon/Jupiter is 6°41'

Finally, a fine Mercury aspect - wonderful for communication and sharing ideas - that is only evident when progressions are considered.

20°02' Vir - Gayle's p Mercury
20°10' Vir - Steve's Mercury

[SteveS]

Thanks Jim. I think all the aspects you mentioned describe important stuff with our relationship, but after telling myself at an early age I would never get married, it was this p Venus MC contact that is the big BINGO, I simply fell in love and its this love that has held the marriage together for over 50 years. I will pay a dear price of pain if she goes before me, if this happens my earth life is over as I know it....

There is only one other main Venus I have studied which explains to me this potent cupid effect that stuck my soul, but it pertains to Hindu Harmonics that no other astrologer has been able to explain to me other than a sidereal zodiac degree coincidence.

[Jim Eshelman]

I understand that. (Though I promise we'll look for things to keep you interested.)

I'm keenly aware that either Marion or I will have to live through a gigantic emotional blow one day. The easy route is for me to selfishly expect I'll go first; then I remember what a blow that would be to her.

[SteveS]

I understand Jim! If Gayle goes before me, the only companion I will have left is this forum. Just notice something else about this technique with Gayle & I relationship. Her Natal MC is 12,16 Pi, 1,01 180 my s p Venus. I think the comparison of our SNQ with the partners Natal is indeed important. How do we read this s p Venus on both my SNQ MC and her Natal MC? This is indeed mind blowing for me, no coincidence here! I wish we had all the articles from AA written on this technique posted on this forum. Jim, if you had the right scanning tool--could you post the article or would this violate copyright laws?

[Jim Eshelman]

How do we read this s p Venus on both my SNQ MC and her Natal MC?

I think you'll get the feel instantly if you keep in mind that her chart (in this scenario) constitutes the TRANSITS to your chart. Another way to say this, therefore, is: On a day your SNQ had progressed Venus on MC, an "event" happened at the moment the same progressed Venus came to IC.

I don't think the angle-to-angle contact means anything by itself. (I spent years fruitlessly watching these and trying to find observable, replicable meaning in things like my MC on someone's Asc.) But the fact that, on that date and place, you had progressed Venus on your SNQ angle and then also rotated to the local IC means something.

This is indeed mind blowing for me, no coincidence here! I wish we had all the articles from AA written on this technique posted on this forum.

LOL, you do. I think the paragraph above is the total amount written in AA on this technique.

Jim, if you had the right scanning tool--could you post the article or would this violate copyright laws?

It would technically violate copyright, though by this point in time we can get away with a certain amount of it since it's not sold etc.

I've been mentioning the technique on and off for years.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

I don't think the angle-to-angle contact means anything by itself.

Not the angles by themselves, agreed, but with my sp. Venus on my SNQ MC & my SNQ Venus opposing her Natal IC it certainly means a lot to me and Gayle as an astrological explanation comparing these two charts if part of the technique. A cupid Venus effect big time for both of us. A very interesting technique, I need to look at more love relationships with timed births. I do know this for sure: Our relationship was a huge cupid effect for each other at first sight (eye contact). I need to study this thread more throughly paying closer attention to Danica's observations.

[SteveS]

I have more questions about this technique later, but of all the comparison charts I have looked at for relationships, this technique by far, overall, nails the good and bad symbolism for Gayle’s & my 51 year relationship. This technique astounds me, so many good AA Sidereal Astrology articles (knowledge) lost collecting dust somewhere---a shame.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

I don't think the angle-to-angle contact means anything by itself. (I spent years fruitlessly watching these and trying to find observable, replicable meaning in things like my MC on someone's Asc.) But the fact that, on that date and place, you had progressed Venus on your SNQ angle and then also rotated to the local IC means something.

OK, let me try to understand this "angle-to-angle" issue better. My SNQ with this technique calculates a MC-IC axis which just so happens to be the same MC-IC axis as Gayle’s Natal MC-IC axis. And then Gayle’s SNQ calculates a MC-IC axis that just so happens to be the same MC-IC axis as my Natal MC-IC axis, except the poles of these two sets of SNQ MC-IC axis are reversed. This is one of those strange mathematical coincidences that we run into from time to time in our study of astrology, its just there starring us in our eyes. These two sets of SNQ MC-IC axis equaling the other’s same Natal MC-IC axis means nothing by themselves for the relationship, but when progressed planets or natal planets are in close orbs to either one of the two relationship people’s SNQ MC-IC axis-- then it becomes important as a major theme-setter for the relationship, no matter how long the relationship lasts. It make sense to me this would also apply to the SNQ ASC-DSC axis as well with this technique.
Jim wrote:

I think the paragraph above is the total amount written in AA on this technique.

But yet Bradley states in the paragraph pertaining to this technique:

Some highly competent astrologers feel there is much value in progressing the charts of two people to each other's respective birthdates, using the other's natal planets as transits. By progression we mean the secondary year-for-a-day system in which the whole diurnal rotation of the sky is taken into account (widely called the quotidian method). We have tested this approach and find it remarkable for the way it appears to define the significance of one person's role in the life of another, and vice versa. It is in this technique that factors such as One True Loves are appropriately pinpointed. And what is more, such an approach does not do violence to the logical faculties.

We don’t have a clue who these “highly competent astrologers” were but these competent astrologers “feel there is much value” in this technique. And then Bradley states this is a “remarkable” technique for finding one’s “True Loves”. And then a handful of other competent astrologers on this forum start testing this technique on their important life relationships and see the potential for the same remarkable results.
Just out of my sheer respect for all of Bradley’s work with his astrological opinions and my constant business brain storming I have used all my life, I leave this opinion for other young serious astrologers who are business minded living in today’s world of amazing high technology, but would have to have someone comparable to the same programing skills as Mike. Here is a potential highly successful business model: Program an astrological program which would simple quickly compute these SNQ charts compared to the Natals spitting out only the ones with either Moon- Venus-Jupiter or combos of these three (maybe include the Sun) close to the angles. Charge 5 $ beating the hell out of ALL competitors who promote match making for potential lovers on this planet which we know is mostly BS. State all that is needed are AA birth times with location for very high % for successful match making and then let the benefic planets/lights do their natural doings and the Planet would become a better World putting many divorce lawyers out of business. Good word of mouth would spread like a wildfire across the planet making this business model billions. Make sure the words “advanced astrology” only allowed by today’s new technologies is the only match making being used for finding potential good lovers/life mates. We astrologers already know who Cupid is: Venus.

I join Danica with both our brief rapid analysis of this technique: This is a mind blowing technique and we don’t even know the originator of this technique, only Bradley’s and his colleagues’ opinion who tested this technique. Oh well….

[Jim Eshelman]

This is a long list of questions. I'll to hit all your points and still keep this an orderly, instructive response. (Some of the points might require their own thread, but I'll try tightly targeted responses first.)

The "angle-to-angle" issue
Your comment on this conflated two things, which, to get a good start, we need to disentangle. One is the astrological value of aspects between two people's angles (and, more broadly, any one set of angles aspecting any other set of angles). The other is the lifetime persistence of specific angular contacts between your two charts using the SNQ method. Let's break these out,

OK, let me try to understand this "angle-to-angle" issue better. My SNQ with this technique calculates a MC-IC axis which just so happens to be the same MC-IC axis as Gayle’s Natal MC-IC axis. And then Gayle’s SNQ calculates a MC-IC axis that just so happens to be the same MC-IC axis as my Natal MC-IC axis, except the poles of these two sets of SNQ MC-IC axis are reversed. This is one of those strange mathematical coincidences that we run into from time to time in our study of astrology, its just there starring us in our eyes.

When speaking against angle-to-angle contacts above, I meant two specific things. First (excluding one-off examples here and there) I meant that in synastry in general (and in other areas of astrology in general), contacts of angles to angles do not hold up as significant events. This was stunning to me in synastry, where the collective opinion of astrologers was that Ascendant-to-Ascendant interchanges among the most important, similar to Moon-to-Moon interchanges. They aren't. They are infrequent and, in particular, their frequency does not exceed what would be expected by chance, i.e., we seem unable to establish the legitimacy of an astrological effect to this per se. - This includes not only synastry but things like progressed Midheaven square natal Ascendant. Increasingly, anything that looks like treating angles the way you would treat planets seems invalid.

The most fascinating cases are those like you and Gayle. I'll come back to that.

The second thing I meant by the original statement concerned ascribing specific meanings to each angle and basing interpretations on those. I encountered this type of thing constantly in my time deeply embedded in the Tropical community (and it's not really just Tropicalists). People frequently brought up that my mate of the time had her Vertex conjunct my IC, wondering how the intersection of her 7th houseness and my 4th houseness manifest. It's not hard to come up with a theoretical interpretation of that makes immediate sense to everyone, but I submit that such "my 4th to your 7th" interpretations ultimately don't give us anything new or truly meaningful. - Steve, these particular things probably weren't in your mind (i.e., I was answering something you didn't say), but I thought I should clarify what I was speaking against,

These two sets of SNQ MC-IC axis equaling the other’s same Natal MC-IC axis means nothing by themselves for the relationship, but when progressed planets or natal planets are in close orbs to either one of the two relationship people’s SNQ MC-IC axis-- then it becomes important as a major theme-setter for the relationship, no matter how long the relationship lasts. It make sense to me this would also apply to the SNQ ASC-DSC axis as well with this technique.

Agreed: As you say, the angle-to-angle contact needs nothing per se, but when a planet is there it gets doubled up! I've seen this dozens of times in mundane astrology, in particular, where, say, the CanQ angles happen to rotate past the Capsolar angles and a critical planet happens to be exactly at their intersection - and we get an event.

I think there is something larger here, too - something hard to quantify or single out because it seems to much like other things known to us. There is something about ratios and gaps between the timing of different moments that may be significant on its own and only appears - shows up in a way we can recognize - with such things as angle-to-angle interchanges. There are different kinds of coincidences (things coinciding) that seem reflected in angle-to-angle contacts just as a convenient way of measuring the passage of time. This "ratios in the passage of time" possible avenue in astrology has barely been hinted at and never really explored. (It may amount to nothing at all, but it seems there are great interlocking patterns that show in it.)

Bradley, writing about converse quotidians, mentioned that the day every year when the two RAMCs (direct and converse) coincide should be significant. I don't know if he meant significant only if there is a planet there, or significant on its own, but I suspect it's only significant if there is a planet angular in both at the same time EXCEPT there is this other thing about phased units of time separate from other astrological considerations.

Let's start with this: You and Gayle were born 3 years 30 days 12:07 apart in absolute time. Since 1948 was a leap year, that's 1,126 days 12:07 apart. Note that 12h07m, or almost exactly half a day. This gets even closer when we adjust for the difference in geographic longitude, which was 1°13' or 0:04:53 (call it 5 minutes). When we adjust the 12h07m with this 5 minutes, the "phase" between your birth times is 12h02m or almost precisely half a day.

This is remarkable! With this kind of exactly half a day phase, there will be all sorts of interlocking mathematics between your charts! It's quite special. (You could see it approximately even faster by noting that her birthtime of 11:07 PM EST is the same as 10:07 PM CST, while you were born at 10:00 AM CST - half a day apart, approximately. When you adjust for 5m of longitude, this narrows to almost precisely half a day difference in birth times.

So... you were born almost precisely half a day apart, but with her 30 days further into the calendar year. (This is why you don't have natal MCs opposite each other.)

You can see this (approximately) at a glance by seeing that you have Sun on 11th cusp and she has Sun on 5th cusp. That alone would tell you that you are each the same "phaser" through your birth date as the other (half a circle off). Some astrologers would want to make a big deal of your Suns being in opposite houses. I think something more subtle (and essentially unexplored) is occurring.

What I hope I'm demonstrating here is that the phenomenon of the reciprocally flipped progressed Midheavens is a necessary consequence of this exactly half day difference in your birth times, which might one day prove to be a bigger deal than the angle contacts themselves!

Similarly, Marion and I have birth times that are 0:53 minutes difference in UT (in absolute time). The difference in the geographic longitudes is 0h48m. Again, this is nearly an exact match in time or phase of the day. (Our matching 1st house Suns shows that this would be approximately true.)

there may be harmonic phases of the flow of time itself, and this sometimes looks like specific astrological measurements aligning in traditional ways that look like aspects (that probably are not valid in and of themselves).

[Jim Eshelman]

I think it's better to break off the next part of the reply into a separate post.

I think the paragraph above is the total amount written in AA on this technique.

But yet Bradley states in the paragraph pertaining to this technique:

Some highly competent astrologers feel there is much value in progressing the charts of two people to each other's respective birthdates, using the other's natal planets as transits. By progression we mean the secondary year-for-a-day system in which the whole diurnal rotation of the sky is taken into account (widely called the quotidian method)...

We don’t have a clue who these “highly competent astrologers” were but these competent astrologers “feel there is much value” in this technique. And then Bradley states this is a “remarkable” technique for finding one’s “True Loves”.

All true. However, none of that means it was ever published. I'm grateful he posted the short observations that he did.

Remember, Bradley was in ongoing contact with a LOT of people. He got hundreds of letters from me alone. Over 30 years, he corresponded with vast numbers of people. And, for all I know, this could have gone back to Llewellyn George or Charles Carter, though I imagine it was one of the hundreds (more?) of astrologers with whom he corresponded over the years of knew through his position at American Astrology.

For all the published statistical research we have from Bradley and his close co-workers, it's just the tip of the iceberg of what was done and NOT made public. I know that Gary Duncan had at least another dozen studies that he was holding until he could find the right time and way to leverage their publication. (There may have been more. I only mention one paper that gave a few lines on each of several large studies, and there could have been many more never mentioned.) There also was always the hope of "doing it right," doing really thorough statistical breakdowns beyond what they'd done historically, and a sense of scientific pride that in not publishing it until it was complete and ready to meet the standards of peer reviewed papers in the more conventional sciences.

It's not rare (more often, it's the standard) that significant scientific research is held back 10 years (sometimes 20 years) until it can be confirmed, studied sufficiently, properly presented, rather than to rush into print. There are disadvantages - like people dying and having their unfinished work go goodness knows where - but otherwise there are great advantages in "getting it right" before publishing.

...I leave this opinion for other young serious astrologers who are business minded living in today’s world of amazing high technology, but would have to have someone comparable to the same programing skills as Mike.

Calculation of SNQ is available in Solar Fire and other software and eventually will be available in TMSA.

Program an astrological program which would simple quickly compute these SNQ charts compared to the Natals spitting out only the ones with either Moon- Venus-Jupiter or combos of these three (maybe include the Sun) close to the angles.

I don't find the angular contact to be the most important. They're important, of course (and VERY important in your marriage), but probably 7 out of 10 I've seen (for really important relationships) don't have those. I've seen progressed Moon aspects take the lead more often than anything else. In analyzing them, I always look at the angles LAST because - just as in prediction work - other patterns (planetary progressions, narrowed by lunar progressed aspects) set up the pattern with the quotidian angle crossing being the "last straw" that snaps the rest of the pattern in final place.


In any case, I've been mentioning this technique for about as long as this forum has existed. I'm glad it's finally getting some attention. Here's a thread that came over from the old forum:
https://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=70

[SteveS]

I clearly understand Jim where you are coming from, no way of knowing for sure what good astrological material is out there collecting dust that has not been published through the rigors of proper scientific research, kinda like your SMA material on Super Bowls & Financial Panics which have only been published on this forum---to be lost for no telling how long, probably forever when you are gone.

[Jim Eshelman]

It will be in Volume III of the mega-work - so there's a goal to get that into wider circulation - and I hope when I'm gone people will take the items that haven't been physically produced and distribute them widely.

But i was talking about thing that never got published or circulated at all.

[Lyse]

Our synastry was quite accurate but progressing our charts to each other was fascinating. We’ve been together for over thirty-three years, engaged three weeks after meeting and married nine months later.

Dev

21°42' Vir – p Sun
22°13' Gem – p Moon
21°58' – Gem - natal MC
22°43' – Gem – Venus (Lyse)
21°59' – Leo – p Jupiter

19°21' – Lib – p Venus
19°45' – Leo – r Jupiter

10°28' – Vir - p Neptune
9°48' - Gem- p Asc

Lyse

9°18' – Gem – p IC
9°29 – Gem – p Venus

5°36' – Can – p Mars (Lyse)
6°04' – Lib – r Venus (Dev)

9°29' – Gem –p Venus (Lyse)
10°04' – Vir – p Neptune (Dev)

11°39' – Can – p Jupiter
12°31' – Can – r Mars

Dev's progressed Asc to my birth was 9°48' Gemini and my progressed Venus to his birth was 9°29' Gemini, though I can’t see any significance other than it’s interesting.

[SteveS]

Indeed Lyse, an outstanding example for this technique, thanks for posting.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

I think there is something larger here, too - something hard to quantify or single out because it seems to much like other things known to us. There is something about ratios and gaps between the timing of different moments that may be significant on its own and only appears - shows up in a way we can recognize - with such things as angle-to-angle interchanges. There are different kinds of coincidences (things coinciding) that seem reflected in angle-to-angle contacts just as a convenient way of measuring the passage of time. This "ratios in the passage of time" possible avenue in astrology has barely been hinted at and never really explored. (It may amount to nothing at all, but it seems there are great interlocking patterns that show in it.)

Jim, your mind sees astrological things in much more understood mathematical details than my mind can sort out or understand. All my mind tells me there is something important going on here with this technique involving daily quotidian mathematics, much more important. All I can add is of all the synastry methods I have looked at in my 40 years of astrological study, this SNQ method has impressed me the most, by far, when explaining Gayle’s/I relationship, it blew my mind.
Jim wrote:

I don't find the angular contact to be the most important. They're important, of course (and VERY important in your marriage), but probably 7 out of 10 I've seen (for really important relationships) don't have those. I've seen progressed Moon aspects take the lead more often than anything else. In analyzing them, I always look at the angles LAST because - just as in prediction work - other patterns (planetary progressions, narrowed by lunar progressed aspects) set up the pattern with the quotidian angle crossing being the "last straw" that snaps the rest of the pattern in final place.

Jim, I don’t know anything for sure about this method. But I am pretty sure if it was not for the benefic Venus angular contact with Gayle’s & I technique here, our long marriage would not have survived the malefic content in this synastry technique. In other words, it was my p Venus (true love) with its angular contact to my SNQ MC and her Natal MC which held our marriage together for so long, and her Moon-Jupiter contacts to my angles. In other words True Love (Venus) will conquer all other malefic stuff in a synastry except for death of one of the partners. So, for now, I have to disagree with you when you say “I don't find the angular contact to be the most important.”

I think this technique so important I would support financially the right team of people who knew they could put together a reasonably priced business model that could possibly attract millions of people on the planet to an internet site who were interested in harmonious match making with Venus contacts to the angles of their SNQ charts based on this technique. WHY? Simply because billions of people on this planet believe in some forms of astrology, and most all of these people are constantly searching for true love with a mate.

Jim as always, I really appreciate your in-depth thinking on things astrologically. I may not understand it all--but I always learn something.

[Jim Eshelman]

I get it: Especially with yours and Gayle's charts, the quotidian angle REALLY pops it out!

More so, your conventional synastry isn't that intriguing in ways that other people could easily see. None of the classic markers are there, so this quotidian approach REALLY makes a difference for your synastry. Using conventional synastry, in addition to some pleasing things like her Venus within 3° of square your Mars, the loudest aspects are her Saturn to your Sun-Uranus within minutes. That's not the worst aspect for a marriage (not all that uncommon), and I bet YOU fully understand what it means between the two of you, but it's not the most obvious to outsiders, I imagine.

We haven't had any doubt about your birthtime over the years, but I've been seeing quotidian angles work as widely as 2° (especially when something else is involved), so the Q picture is even more interesting than we've been mentioning:

11°17' Vir - p Venus
12°16' Pis - t MC
12°26' Vir - p MC

24°01' Sco - t Mars
25°56' Sco - p Asc

In general cases (tho0ugh it doesn't make a real difference in your case), here's the key to this method: To get its value in synastry, it's important to look at this as if it were a PREDICTION technique, not a synastry technique, including all the build-up of progressions and transits up to the moment of the other person's birth.

In other words, I suggest you don't frame the question as, "How does my chart click with Gayle's?" but AS IF it were a prediction technique: What kind of event would I have had October 20, 1950, 11:07 PM, in Columbus, GA? What would my experience have been at that moment in that place? - Again, in your case, it would have been about the same answer as the simple looking at angular crossing that immediately caught your eye.


From Gayle's side, the build-up is more complicated. Asking what kind of experience she would have had if she'd been in Albertville on September 20, 1947 at 0:00 AM, I note first that it was a year of progressed Venus conjunct natal Neptune (her progressed-to-progressed Venus-Neptune was only 03' wide for the event of your birth) - and this conjunction was partile sextile natal Mars. Within this idyllic, potentially romantic and passionate setting, the had a hard "shake your reality" transit of Uranus square her Saturn (47 at the "event") triggered exactly by transiting Sun (03' at the "event"). Would this mean deflated, disappoint fantasies (Sun to Saturn by itself would go this way) or something that rocked her world (Uranus to Saturn was the setup for this)? Transiting Mars was simultaneously in partile hard aspect to her progressed Sun (15') and Moon (56'), about 20' from their midpoint. AND THEN, within this progression and transit setup, quotidian Descendant crossed her natal Mars as her natal Moon-Jupiter split the Q Midheaven. AND THEN transiting Midheaven rotated to the opposite point, triggering the same pair.

It's like the build-up to an event. The gradual build of the progressions and slow transits setting up the larger event, then narrowing by progressed Moon, then narrowing further by the faster transits and finally the quotidian crossing to complete the experience of the day.

This is how we would single an event out of a range of time - how (for example) we'd know whether a particular year would be important (and in what way), then then narrow to when it would have the most decisive impact, the greatest chance of erupting. In the same way, in our lives our psyches and the universe filter through the range of birth dates surrounding us (the people we meet) to isolate the "most likely to produce a big event" dates and times (birth charts) around us.

[Jim Eshelman]

Now I'm going to REALLY blow your mind!

The larger reality that this technique shows is that our astrological response isn't so much to a person as to a moment in time and space: What kind of event would we expect to have the moment and place the other person was born? As you know, there are many simultaneous ways that major events show in our lives.

So... Your solar return for the date and place of Gayle's birth had Venus (18°46' Leo) half a degree from Asc (18°08' Leo) - throw in a partile Moon-Neptune square for delirious! <g> This Venus squared your foreground natal Moon on IC.

So... less than a week before Gayle's birth, you had a lunar return that, for her birthplace, had Jupiter less than 1° from Zenith. You'd have experienced this as an unusually lucky, happy time.

Under this SSR and SLR ALONE you would have expected an outstandingly happy, fun time - one of the best vacations of your life. You would have rightly expected the two-week window beginning October 14, 1950 to be one of the very best times ever to happen to you PREOVIDED you were in or near Columbus, GA.

FWIW, your SQ Moon at her birth was 24°13' Sagittarius (PSSR Moon 24°31'), the degree of her Descendant (and square transiting Neptune, i.e., her Neptune). Uranus was on the SQ MC. (Imagine: Being where your SSR had Venus precisely rising and square natal Moon, your SLR had Jupiter exactly square Asc, and THEN your SQ MC crossed Uranus! Does this sound like your first impression of Gayle?)

It's a revolutionary way to view synastry. We call people we court our DATES because while we're busy humanly relating to the person, our horoscopes are ultimately relating to a specific DATE, TIME, AND PLACE - the intersection of a specific time and different place - that marked their birth. The best (most revelatory) way to think of this is to regard it as an "event" we would have had if we'd been at the moment and place of their birth and run our charts for that occasion.

Some of Gayle's charts for your birth are unclear to me, but her PSSR is a gem: Her PSSR for the moment and place you were born had Moon 3°04' Virgo (13' from your Sun, i.e., "transiting" Sun) plus her natal Jupiter on PSSR Descendant.

[Jim Eshelman]

My chart progressed to Marion's birth singles out an unusual year in my life. Progessed Sun is conjunct natal (19') and progressed (39') Neptune. My progressed Mars, when she was born, had been opposing natal Jupiter-Uranus for two years and was still within 1° of each.

Something I have dwelt on in this thread is that we need to remember that these are progressions, not transits. Progressions mark "incidents," not "accidents." That is, they represent natural developments unfolding within us, inherent developments that were expected from our birth rather than things that arise from our interaction with the external world (= transits). Admittedly, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between these two, especially since most events arise out of a combination of things we naturally bring (who we are innately = natals), how we have developed to date (= progressions), and conditions around us (= transits). Nonetheless, in thinking about progressions, we'll be off on the best foot if we try to think of them as natural developments or unfoldings from within rather than the way we think of transits.

This may be (probably is) why this method can identify relationships that feel destined or "I was born for this": They touch things that arise from who we are and its natural, expected unfolding more than from symbols of interactions with the environment. Major relationships identified by this method have more of a sense of "I was born for this one."

So how would I interpret this progressed Sun-Neptune conjunction. Well, in my actual life it was the worst year of my childhood. Third grade was terrible. But as an adult, I have different psychological resources and can relate to that time from a different perspective. In synastry, we expect Sun-Neptune to show a fantasy, temptation, and indulgence, a heightened drive to mold reality, to be totally absorbed or submerged in something, and to attract and absorb others into the reality. Is it any wonder that people with natal Sun-Neptune aspects are more likely to marry than any other aspect type?

So the background themes - my experiences of that year in general - would be progressed Sun conjunct Neptune and progressed Mars still opposite natal Jupiter-Uranus. (One could have a lot of zany adventures under those combinations that are easier to pursue as an adult than as a child.)

Ah, but then... the primary timing tool of secondary progressions and usually the most important factor in this synastry method... progressed Moon zoomed into the middle of things!

3°20' Can - r Uranus [p Uranus 3°29']
3°34' Can - p Moon
3°37' Can - r Jupiter [p Jupiter 4°29']
4°19' Cap - p Mars

Well, that's a whole new layer! Progressed Moon hits the very best thing in my chart. We have the symbolism of Moon-Uranus (05'), Moon-Jupiter (03'), Moon-Mars (45') against the background of Mars/-Jupiter and Mars-Uranus. "Electricity" doesn't begin to describe it.

Remember to keep thinking of these as PREDICTIONS more than synastry. Keep the question framed as "What would I experience at the date, time, and place?" where the date, time, and place "just happen" to be the other person's birth. I emphasize this for various reasons, but (t the moment) especially because our brains go down different pathways when we think about predicting an event than when we think about "comparing two charts." What I'm demonstrating in this immediate post is how this works as the gradual build-up and unfolding and crescendo that we are used to seeing in predictive work, as if we were saying, "This looks like an interesting year. Now tell me which part of that year will be most interesting, see if you can tell me the day that will be most interesting, and tell me where in the world I need to be on that day to have the best experience." (Our brains are always unconsciously making these calculations as we meet people and feel their birth charts.)

On the day in question, I had no quotidian angularities. Looking at the build-up above, we see that we wouldn't have needed them: As progressed Moon was 14' past natal Uranus, 05' past progressed Uranus, and 03' before natal Jupiter, we already are narrowed to the approximate day: We'd have expected the "event" to pop within a day or two of the exact day on which Marion was born. In this case, it didn't need a quotidian crossing.

We do get a final confirmation at the hour. Her Ascendant ("transiting" Ascendant of the event) is 4°53' Taurus. I already knew my natal Venus at 1°53' Scorpio was close to her Descendant. Of great interest, my progressed Venus for her birth is 5°07' Scorpio, only 0°13' from the transiting angle!

I'm satisfied with how the technique isolates the date and time - down to within about 1 minute of time.


But what about other signs of my relationship to that time and place? With progressed Moon to natal Jupiter-Uranus already, look at my solar return for that year:

9°12' Aqu - s Jupiter
9°23' Aqu - s Moon
9°25' Leo - s Uranus

All I can say is: Wow!

My SSR for her birthplace has several significant planets in the broader foreground: natal Sun rising and, more widely, natal Jupiter-Uranus-Neptune. The closest is natal Mars. Besides the Moon aspects (which aren't place-specific), they aren't place-specific or overly exciting, but they're adequate.

My SLR prior to her birth is nothing in particular; but it was less than a day before my new Demi-SLR which had natal Sun, Jupiter-Uranus, and Neptune exactly angular and transiting Jupiter moderately foreground (rising). The most important thing in the chart: Transiting Jupiter opposite natal sun 0°53' mundo. (It's a mundane foreground aspect. It utterly singles out now only a time but also a place.)

The SQ puts SQ Moon exactly on MC. (Interesting but not necessarily definitive.) - Oh (almost missed it) that SQ Moon 18°47' Aquarius is sesqui-square natal Jupiter (10') and Uranus (27'), the third separate, distinctive Moon-to-Jupiter-Uranus of the series.

[Jim Eshelman]

Marion's SSR for my time and place of birth had natal Jupiter 0°54' from IC. One also shouldn't miss:

13°40' Gem - t Venus
14°09' Sag - t Mars
15°56' Sag - SSR EP-a

Her Demi-SLR a day before I was born has, for my birthplace:

1°29' Sco - t Venus [2°34' before Asc)
2°05' Leo - t Puto
2°20' Sco - SLR Asc
3°51' Leo - r Mars

15°59' Leo - r Moon [1°18' before MC]
16°21' Leo - SLR MC

Transiting Venus is in mundane square to natal Moon 1°16'!

Her SQ Moon 20°22' Aries was within 1° of conjunct natal Venus and opposite natal Neptune. The SQ WP-a crossed transiting Venus (my Venus) within 1°. Her PSSR Asc squared my Sun (transiting Sun).

Astrologically, we aren't relating to a person - we're relating to the point in time-space (a particular moment and place) where they were born.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

…the loudest aspects are her Saturn to your Sun-Uranus within minutes. That's not the worst aspect for a marriage (not all that uncommon), and I bet YOU fully understand what it means between the two of you, but it's not the most obvious to outsiders, I imagine.

Indeed Jim. Outside of maybe a factor for the longevity of the marriage, it probably explains she played a big part for initially putting me into contact with the teachings of astrology without her consciously knowing or caring that much for astrology. No outsider astrologers would be able to understand this; I can only say when I look back with details into our long marriage, I can definitely say if not for her I never would have found my life’s path into astrology or with the certain psychics who came into my life who told me the right things which were in front of me from a business standpoint that allowed me much business success. Jim, you are so right-- I DO “fully understand what that synastry aspect means between the two of us” which never would be obvious to other astrologers. Its one of those why/how things when you ask yourself the question: who were the main people in your life who were responsible for you contacting the other important main people for your entire life? And this person was Gayle; if not for her-- my life would have been a total failure, because she got me hooked-up with certain people who became so important in my life, without her realizing what she was doing for me and her. Her Saturn became my main astrologer teacher for my life with the path she guided me to without her realizing she was guiding me to a destiny path.
Jim wrote:

…it's important to look at this as if it were a PREDICTION technique, not a synastry technique,

Jim, I can now see this as so true! And it’s mind blowing to me that Bradley in a couple of short paragraphs is telling us this technique is so important for seeing—maybe finding “the true loves” for our lives. I am intrigued as to the individual who put Bradley onto this technique. It obviously had to be an astrologer who was well versed with SNQ charting; therefore probably another Siderealist, yet no major publications on this technique we are aware of; this is mind blowing considering all of the other volumes of material we have absorbed on Sidereal Astrology---yet this technique has received the least amount of attention (hardly no attention at all) in the field of Sidereal astrology.
Jim wrote:

In other words, I suggest you don't frame the question as, "How does my chart click with Gayle's?" but AS IF it were a prediction technique: What kind of event would I have had October 20, 1950, 11:07 PM, in Columbus, GA? What would my experience have been at that moment in that place? - Again, in your case, it would have been about the same answer as the simple looking at angular crossing that immediately caught your eye.

Jim, it’s obvious to me looking back on 52 years of marriage! The kind of event I had with Gayle’s Birth time and location is experiencing angular p Venus to my SNQ MC as “true love” for myself, the same “true love” Bradley’s mind perceived of with his two quoted paragraphs you posted. Right now, I see my p Venus on her Natal MC as the main reason she stuck with me for 52 years--she should have left me long ago with the hell I have put her through, which I will explain later in response to your other points. In other words, she knew that my love for her was true which was the glue that helt the marriage together. I don't think we have it figured out exactly how to read this new technique for relationships. I am beginning to think as long as angle to angle contact is there with close orb planets---it is super important as THE main trend for the relationship. Again, Bradley (your mentor) work/words as a Sidereal Astrology blows my mind into a passion of study and wonder with his observations with this technique. If I could find my lost magic wand, I would wave it and every person on the planet would have their AA birth times logged into a computer bank seeking to match themselves with another person which calculated for themselves angular p Venus as long as their natal Venus was not afflicted, or maybe, even if afflicted it would not matter, and or Jupiter. Think of the possibilities of how much harmony (Venus) this could produce on the planet if they could combo-up with angular Venus or Moon-Venus anywhere in this technique charting technique. As astrologers with this possible pure “true love” knowledge Bradley is speaking of---this would be a goal to attempt to work and achieve—now that the technology has arrived on the planet.
Too be continued…

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

From Gayle's side, the build-up is more complicated. Asking what kind of experience she would have had if she'd been in Albertville on September 20, 1947 at 0:00 AM, I note first that it was a year of progressed Venus conjunct natal Neptune (her progressed-to-progressed Venus-Neptune was only 03' wide for the event of your birth) - and this conjunction was partile sextile natal Mars. Within this idyllic, potentially romantic and passionate setting, the had a hard "shake your reality" transit of Uranus square her Saturn (47 at the "event") triggered exactly by transiting Sun (03' at the "event"). Would this mean deflated, disappoint fantasies (Sun to Saturn by itself would go this way) or something that rocked her world (Uranus to Saturn was the setup for this)? Transiting Mars was simultaneously in partile hard aspect to her progressed Sun (15') and Moon (56'), about 20' from their midpoint. AND THEN, within this progression and transit setup, quotidian Descendant crossed her natal Mars as her natal Moon-Jupiter split the Q Midheaven. AND THEN transiting Midheaven rotated to the opposite point, triggering the same pair.

Exactly Jim! I will try to explain. I have question Gayle several times about how I knew for sure she had to encounter “disappointed fantasies” a few years after our marriage, she told me yes she did encounter several disappointments with the marriage. I even told her 10 years after the marriage I would understand if she left me and never was there another woman involved. It was all about what she wanted that I could not give her, I could not find my magic wand. It was my lifestyle outside the marriage that was the problem and I knew she deserved much better than me---she is simply a more human person than me, and god all the disappointments which occurred with me having long periods of no good career options. Making lots of money never was my main objective. We went through a bankruptcy but it turned out to be a blessing in disguise because it forced us to buy the cheap house we now own which we love, its our true santuary from the outside world. But for sure she wanted more out of our marriage life than I could give her. She wanted children but I told her up front before the marriage—no children until I knew we could afford to give them a good life economically which never happened until our 60s, had to go through so much economic pain to get there. And some of our verbal battles---well a normal marriage would have never survived these Moon-Mars verbal battles. Again, I say: "True Love" (angular Venus or Moon-Venus aspects anywhere in the chart with this technique will conqur most any othe malefic chart aspect).
When I discovered astrology 40 years ago and started analyzing comparison/synastry between Gayle and I, I never could see the true aspects which accounted for the love between us that kept us together until you posted Bradley’s words with the SNQ technique with my p Venus all over my SNQ MC-IC axis including her Natal MC, and her p Jup close orb to her SNQ MC and my Natal IC, which certainly explained to me how her Natal direct Moon/Jup = my Natal IC. This had always explained to me why when I would get in the dump about things---her Moon-Jupiter would lift me out of the gutters. I always knew it had to be a potent angular Venus somewhere that was holding our marrage together, but like I said---I could not find it until you posted this Bradley SNQ example. I can now die in peace knowing there WAS a clear astrological chart explaining this WHY for our marriage. Jim, I understand you see many more astrological layers in all the astrology you do, but I really don’t need many layers except for what’s on the angles and moon aspects to explain to me the main theme of things with the astrology I practice. Once I understand the main theme of things I will know what to overall to expect--- if I will be able to work/blend the other layers into what’s needed.
Jim wrote:

This may be (probably is) why this method can identify relationships that feel destined or "I was born for this": They touch things that arise from who we are and its natural, expected unfolding more than from symbols of interactions with the environment. Major relationships identified by this method have more of a sense of "I was born for this one."

Exactly Jim!!! And this method has mostly been lost in obscurity with only 2 paragraphs written by Bradley in one monthly 1973 AA article in the minor “Many Things” section which was never considered a main topic.
Jim wrote:

Astrologically, we aren't relating to a person - we're relating to the point in time-space (a particular moment and place) where they were born.

Jim, I think I now see and understand this---which explains to me why it’s so difficult for two people to find/match a harmonious relationship in this f**ked up world becoming more complex/complicated at an accelerated speed. One needs to be born with a tremendous amount of luck to natually find these type relationships. I think my angular Jup-Node brought Gayle to me. But, people on the planet need to be able to expand their match making knowledges without Natal luck which the way I see it--it could possibly be done with this beautiful astrological “true love” technique on a much broader scale---the whole world---not just where they reside in a community. With computer programing and the instant networking possibilities with social media on a whole world scale---just think what this technique may be able to do for a “true-love” match making possibility for a much more harmonious planet in so many ways. “True Love” can heal so much pain, all kinds of pain, in this ever becoming more complex world. I wish Bradley was here for this discussion to see all of these new technologies with what he considered a "True Love" match making technique. Oh well...

[Jim Eshelman]

I wish Bradley was here for this discussion to see all of these new technologies with what he considered a "True Love" match making technique. Oh well...

A noted Sidereal astrologer indirectly connected to Bradley's published and unpublished work (I won't name, in case he wants privacy on this) made a poignant remark to me in the early '80s. He said he sometimes wondered, if Bradley had lived just a little longer and seen what could be done with personal astrological software on a home computer, whether this would have given him so strong a will to live.

I responded that (especially with the medical knowledge of that era) the chances of continuing to beat multiple resurgences of extremely malignant cancer were essentially zero. Nonetheless, it has often come back to me to wonder - the cancer being out of the picture - what he and his mind could have done with a decade or two of access to a personal PC.

Among other things, I bet Gary Duncan would have been motivated to write mind-blowing PC astro software. He already had written most of what we'd want in FORTRAN for mainframes and mini computers. For those who don't know, Gary was well known in astronomy circles and responsible for providing better Moon calculation routines for the Moon landing etc. Once upon a time, I had a copy of an article he published in a scientific journal about this - using his real name (Neil Block), of course. Here's an excerpt from a book summarizing an article he wrote while working with JPL:

https://books.google.com/books?id=9y-Jy ... ng&f=false

[SteveS]

All I know is: If I could get into a time machine and go back to these days in our youth (with todays technologies), I would get you, me, Gary/Mike and a small investment banker I knew for a sit down meeting about the possibilities for a world wide match-making possibility for "true love." Even if nothing came out of it--we would have some fun as astrologers discussing the matter.

[Jim Eshelman]

Computerized dating and anything with astrology connected would have flourished at that point in time! The late '60s and early '70s were prime for most everything that was best in the world.

Well, not counting the Vietnam War, Nixon presidency, stuff like that LOL. But drugs, sex, rock'n'roll, astrology, space exploration, eruption of multiple layers of civil rights activism, and we-didn't-know-it-yet readiness of home computers on the horizon? Hell, yeah!

[Jim Eshelman]

Another reason to think our "specfication" for Mike's mate Terry is approximately correct: Mike's SNQ MC to Terry's birth will have the same degree on angles no matter what time she was born, that being Midheaven 9° Virgo.

This is interesting because our speculative time for her places Moon at 9° Sagittarius!

Does anything else in this system suggest that the 3:09 PM "working time" is more exact or less exact? Again, confirming the Moon to the degree, her chart progressed to his birth has a partile Moon-Jupiter progressed square (like we've seen so often here - especially in my charts). For the angles - Mike can assess best whether this fits or not - for the 3:03 PM birth time Terry's progressed chart has:

1°47' Tau - p MC
1°07' Sco - p Mars

4°24' Sco - r Mars
5°21' Leo - p Asc
5°58' Leo - p Uranus
6°04' Leo - r Uranus

An exact Mars-Uranus paran! This is joined by Mike's Neptune (7°37' Libra) conjunct Terry's progressed Moon (7°44' Libra), which conjoins her natal Mercury (7°03' Libra) and is nearly conjunct her natal Venus (6°42' Libra).

If we presume we're essentially right on top of the right time, this looks quite good - practically to the minute. Another possibility, though, is that we're an hour or two off and there are other angles that work better. For example, look how tempting it is to move progressed Moon back half a degree to a degree with the following lineup:

6°13' Cap - r Jupiter
6°42' Lib - r Venus
6°51' Cap - p Jupiter
7°08' Lib - r Mercury
7°37' Lib - t Neptune
7°44' Lib - p Moon for this time



We get a quite different picture running the technique on Mike's chart with that of his ex-wife, Sue. This example is SO educational, I think Mike won't mind my posting it (and I'll remove it if he does). The first thing we see is that there are numerous outstandingly positive connections, including Mike's Sun-Venus closely straddling the quotidian IC, Sue's Jupiter (transiting Jupiter) 0°32' from SNQ IC, and SNQ Asc within a degree and a half of square natal Jupiter. HOWEVER, these cannot compete with the background progressions that Sue's chart (the "transits") set off in some of the worst ways:

19°14' Sco - t Venus
19°19' Tau - p Mars
19°45' Leo - t Pluto
19°58' Sco - p Saturn

From what Mike has already said, the details he has previously given, this seems - in all its complexity and interweaving - uncannily accurate. The benefics on angles gave them years of marriage and a son, but - like one good day out of a basically bad year - that couldn't ultimately overcame the baseline progressions. One can say from this that Mike should never (in one sense) have married anyone born in 1963-64, especially with planets hitting 19-20° Hub.

Similarly, Sue's progressed Sun to Mike's birth was in partile contact with her Saturn-Neptune square. Furthermore, her progressed Mars had just begun to square natal Ascendant. It can be said with equal certainty, then, that for maximum happiness Sue should never have married anyone born in 1957: It was the worst possible birth year for a husband for her, according to this method.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:
But drugs, sex, rock'n'roll, astrology, space exploration, eruption of multiple layers of civil rights activism, and we-didn't-know-it-yet readiness of home computers on the horizon? Hell, yeah!

It blows my mind Jim when I ponder the times I have and am living in. Its kinda like I am in some kind of movie and the camera never stops rolling.
Jim wrote:

Another reason to think our "specfication" for Mike's mate Terry is approximately correct: Mike's SNQ MC to Terry's birth will have the same degree on angles no matter what time she was born, that being Midheaven 9° Virgo. This is interesting because our speculative time for her places Moon at 9° Sagittarius!

That is interesting Jim. I have more to post on this technique--it is very unique to my mind and life.

[FlorencedeZ.]

I wonder though Jim, what is taking the lead in the end?
Synastry or progressing each chart to the other?

For my husband both are as valid.

Progressing his chart to my birth and location he has his Moon conjunct Venus exact as the only aspect.
In synastry his Venus is exact conjunct my IC.
My Sun is on his Moon and his Jupiter as well as my Moon is on his angle.

We were apart in the past several times but there is no doubt we are meant to be together.

[Jim Eshelman]

I suppose that depends on what kind of lead.

I'll always rely, I think, on simple synastry, just because it's so easy and (9 times out of 10 or more) nails the main points.

But if one wants to go deeper, these other methods seem to describe the specific factor of isolating those moments that are stand-out events in life.

One needn't always know this in basic meeting and interaction with someone.

[SteveS]

One of the greatest benefic influences for my entire life was Brock, my best friend of over 55 years. Although I have seen par-excellent symbolism using the gold standard for standard synastry with other relationships in my life, standard synastry never picked-off Brock’s great benefic influence for my life. When I just rolled- out Bradley’s SNQ method for my Natal to Brock’s Natal it calculated this great benefic aspect:
p Moon 28,05 Lib
P Jup 29,28 Lib
r. ASC 27,54 Lib
With this great benefic aspect influence for my life now gone & irreplaceable with Brock's death, it leaves me feeling a great loss.

[Jim Eshelman]

I was drawn to test this method on the synastry of Cyril Fagan and Donald Bradley. The comparison is a little awkward to undertake because of mixed messages about the men's relationship. Over the years, a few people (some of whom knew them in person) told me that they didn't get along once they met in person in Tucson. I tend toward skepticism because the reports used almost precisely the same words - "They didn't get along all well after they met in person in Tucson>" - as if everybody were quoting the same unnamed source. In any case, I asked Gary Duncan directly (he was in a place to know) and he said, "They got along fine."

The charts have some conflicts - these aren't unusual among colleagues - and I' sure they disagreed on some things and challenged each other a bit. According to Gary, Fagan didn't come into the office too often - occasionally to drop something off or pick up some blank chart forms - so it's likely they didn't interact as much in person as we'd like to fantasize.

However, one thing is certain: They had an enormous impact on each other's work. Does this show in the progressions method? It does indeed.

Bradley's chart progressed to Fagan's birth 29 years earlier has one remarkable feature: Bradley was born May 16, 1925. In 1925, Mercury crossed the 6th degree of Aries on March 31, turned retrograde , crossed the same place April 15, turned direct, and came back across the same degree May 16. What this means is that when you progress Bradley's chart backwards in time 29 days/years, his 5°37' Aries natal Mercury progresses to... 5°23' Aries! It was exact the month of the birth of the most important teacher and perhaps the most important colleague of his life.

There's more, including Fagan's ("transiting") Venus exactly on Bradley's quotidian Nadir (but square natal Neptune setting: It surely was a confusing relationship) and Fan's ("transiting") Saturn square Bradley's progressed Moon within 3', but nothing is as attention grabbing as this precise return of progressed Mercury to natal Mercury nearly to the minute.


Fagan's chart progressed 29 years forward to Bradley's also has numerous contacts - they each have a Venus on angles (and Fagan had a progressed Sun-Venus conjunction) - but the real wallop is the Jupiter-Uranus pattern: a 0°02' sextile that would never be taken seriously as a synastric interchange on its own.

26°49' Gem - p Sun
27°29' Gem - p Venus
28°03' Sag - p MC
28°46' Sag - t Jupiter

28°25' Ari - p Asc
28°48' Lib - r Uranus

[SteveS]

[Jim Eshelman]

As long as I have Bradley's chart out, I might as well check a few other life-altering relationships he had.

Llewellyn George "discovered" him, more or less, gave him a job, launched him in an active, visible role in the astrological community, and gave him most of the opportunities that were basic to his life's work. Their synastry is excellent and interesting i more basic forms and becomes a little more interesting with this technique. Progressing Bradley's chart to LG's birth, progressed Moon is just a little more than a degree from conjunct natal Sun. It is conjoined by transiting Pluto and squared by Sun, bringing it right into the Sun-Mars-Jupiter-Pluto to Sun interchanges from the basic synastry. Natal Venus is mere minutes from Q Ascendant (but progressed Saturn on the Q WP-a). Here is the standard synastry breakdown- quite good by itself, but enhanced a bit by the spotlight of progressed Moon:

0°11' Leo - t Mars
0°21' Sco - t Jupiter
1°15' Tau - r Sun
1°32 Leo - t Sun
1°34' Tau - t Pluto
2°32' Tau - p Moon

What did "Papa" see in Bradley? The basi synastry already tells a strong story. For the rest, it seems the basic message is that it was something that changed his life:

18°18' Gem - t Pluto
18°59' Vir - p Sun
19°53' Gem - p Asc

Transiting Mercury opposed natal Mercury 26'. Bradly also was born when LG's progressed Uranus had advanced 3° to 0°20' Leo - compare thiis to the positions listed above, specaly the Jupiter.


LG introduced Bradley to Gary Duncan, who had the mathematical (including statistical) training and skill to support Bradley's research projects. They collaborated heavily over t years, were v good friends when young, and stayed close touch util the end. (Gary visited Don in Tucson about once a year and they stayed in communication on various projects.)

Bradley's Q Asc at the moment and place Gary was born was 18°40' Gemini (compare LG's progressions to Bradley's birth), putting natal Pluto in the Ascendant degree. And for a liffme friendship, get this:

6°24' Tau - p Moon
7°09' Tau - r Venus
7°15' Tau - p Sun

14°49' Tau - p Venus
15°36' Aqu - r Moon

However, there was also t Moon 15°47' Aries, p Saturn 15°49' Libra.

And the other way (Gary's chart progressed to Don's birth)? The outstanding marker is progressed Moon 1°43' Aquarius square transiting Sun 1°15' Taurus with the following mathematical mapping:

15°36' Aqu - t Moon
15°43' Sco - p MC
16°35' Leo - r Mercury


Finally, Joanne Clancy owner and editor of American Astrology, gave him financial security and a longtime employment and opportunity to write and produce. Who was she in his life? Check out this Moon!

1°14' Ari - t Jupiter
19°32' Lib - p Moon
19°43' Ari - t Mercury

And his own Mercury-Jupiter:

28°46' Sag - r Jupiter
28°49' Sag - p Jupiter
29°46' Pis- p Mercury

And who was he to her? The chart is complicated. I'll let those interested progress her chart to his birth moment and place and draw your own conclusions. I knew some of the practical details of their relationship in advance, and then listened, sitting in her office, as she talked about him. Even with that, I can't entirely disentangle the chart.

[Venus_Daily]

The only real connection my X and I had in these charts were the angles In my progressed Q chart, His Venus/Neptune was on the ascendant/DSC while my natal venus was on the MC. The lack of progressed planets may be indicator may have been an indicator as to why it didn't work. Too bad there's no real effective way using astrology to tell me whether or not I'll die alone.

[Jim Eshelman]

The only real connection my X and I had in these charts were the angles In my progressed Q chart, His Venus/Neptune was on the ascendant/DSC while my natal venus was on the MC. The lack of progressed planets may be indicator may have been an indicator as to why it didn't work. Too bad there's no real effective way using astrology to tell me whether or not I'll die alone.

Two Venuses is pretty awesome, though. (Venus on the angle is the main thing Steve has with his wife.) I think two Venuses and a Neptune says a lot about why you were together in the first place.

And my, you are pretty dark these days. Natally, your Venus is background in Virgo but is quite well aspected.

I don't suppose you could find a nursing job near Hartford, CT where your Venus (closely squared by Jupiter) is exactly on Nadir, Jupiter on Descendant, your Mars-Uranus exactly on your Westpoint, and your Sun gloriously on IC? It's hard to imagine a much better chart than that.

8°40' Sag - r Jupiter
10°22' Vir - r Venus
10°30' Gem - L Asc

15°09' Sco - r Uranus
15°56' Sco - r Mars
16°50' Aqu - L MC
18°17' Leo - r Sun

FWIW, my wife insists she didn't find the love of her life until her 40s and didn't marry him (me) until her mid-50s. You've got lots of time (not that I think you need to wait).

How about someone born August to October 1983 so that you have an exact progressed Venus-Jupiter square aspected by progressed Moon for their birthday? Or someone a few years younger born in 1988 so you have a progressed Venus to Moon at their birth, perhaps April to June so that you have a progressed Moon-Pluto aspect to make it feel fated?

[SteveS]

Venus wrote:

Too bad there's no real effective way using astrology to tell me whether or not I'll die alone.

Yes, no way to know this, millions of people die alone, but there is a way to see important things in your Natal which explains (to me) the negative attitudes you have built into your psychic due to important relationship experiences in your life, maybe no fault of your own making, just part of the fated aspect you came into this world to experience as natural law with your birth chart.
1: Most important: In your Natal 7H of relationships, you were born with a partile conjunction of Mars & Uranus, mundo too. Both of these planets are potent Vargottama Planets and in ancient Vedic (Hindu) astrology these two Planets would have been looked upon as the most important aspect in your entire Natal with important predictions about your life relationships, which just so happens to do with how you experience important relationships in your life. Ancient Hindu astrology would not have included Uranus, only the planet Mars, which explains why you have a tough/rough time experiencing important relationships in your life-- having to go through the malefic influences of Mars. In other words, you were born to experience Mars with important close relationships in your life. No different than how I was born to experience very tough/rough business relationships with my Natal Mars in my 8H.
2: You were born with a direct midpoint of ME/SA = VE, probably explaining an important part of your mental attitudes toward certain relationships in your life.

Venus, I say all of this in a constructed manner hoping it helps you release a-lot of your negative attitudes about relationships in your life, but I do understand some of the astrological WHYS you feel the way you do about certain relationships in your life.

[Jim Eshelman]

In another thread, I progressed Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky's charts to each other. The first most interesting thing to me was that each had, in the SNQ, essentially the same angles as at birth! One might guess that this let them both somehow feel more naturally themselves around the other: It let him unleash his natal angular Mars-Neptune conjunction, and her the Mars-Uranus that was angular at birth. The same time, neither had the other's planets involved through this technique and there were no descriptive Moon aspects. This is consistent, with what I've seen, when the universe has not singled out the two people as distinctively interlocked major persisting relationships.

To put them on file in this thread, here is Bill's chart progressed to the moment and place of Monica's birth:

11°58' Vir - SNQ Asc
12°22' Vir - r Mars
12°28' Gem - SNQ MC
12°32' Pis - r Eris
12°52' Vir - r Neptune
13°40' Vir - SNQ EP-a
13°45' Vir - p Neptune

Here is Monica's chart progressed to the moment and place of Bill's birth.

24°53' Vir - r Uranus
25°42' Vir - SNQ EP-a
25°46' Pis - r Mars

[Jim Eshelman]

Is there anything different in the way this technique shows Bill and Hillary, though? We already know that there are similarities between the Bill-Hillary and Bill-Monica interchanges, especially with his Saturn to each of their Suns. (The contact to Hillary is closer, only 0°09' - or 0°01' with progressions! This, of course, means that Monica and Hillary have square Suns, the "why are you occupying the space in the universe set aside for me?" interchange.)

There remains question about Hillary's birth time (I am most confident in the 8:02 AM chart), but we know the date and place - which is good enough to apply the technique. The only angular contact is her Jupiter (the "transiting Jupiter" is the setup) on his SNQ Ascendant 1°33'.

Moon aspects are soft but exacting, especially his progressed Moon at 13°02' Taurus partile trine his natal Mars-Neptune (and his progressed Mars -0°05' and progressed Neptune +0°08').

Understanding that Hillary's birth time is controversial, we can nonetheless progress her chart to his birth, more in an experimental way. The 5° Spoke quotidian angles don't touch anything. Her progressed Moon makes no exact aspects. It isn't persuasive at all.

Experimentally, if we flip her birth time to PM, it gets a lot better - because it gives her a natal Moon of 5° Pisces, exactly on those 5° Spoke quotidian angles. But that's all. It's not a strong showing.

BTW, FWIW, their composite for the AM time has Venus in the exact degree of Ascendant. The chart is primarily marked by a Sun-Mercury conjunction (0°24') and a tight Jupiter-Saturn-Pluto (Jupiter-Saturn is 0°09'). For the PM time, there is no Venus-Ascendant contact and nothing is close to the angles. (The main aspects remain the same.)

[Arena]

I just read this entire thread and decided to try out this method for me and my current partner. There are already so many great contacts in other ways as in synastry, relocated, composite and in directions.

I changed the settings as you described above, to mean quotidion and Q2, but solar fire is not allowing me to progress my birth chart to his birth place, only the date and time of his birth.

So how you do this is to compare this progressed chart to your own natal and also to his natal and then also compare my progressed to his progressed to my birth time? Or perhaps to use for that?

The only thing that stands out is that my pr. Moon is square my n. Moon and conjunct my Mer when he was born as well as the pr. MC partile sq my Uranus.... BUT IF I use the alternative birth time (23.27) for comparison I get a partile hit of pr. VENUS to the n. ASC.

However, IF I cast my birth chart as if I was born in the place he was born, but at 23.40 it is also a partile hit of Venus to my loc. ASC.

When casting his chart to my birth time at his birth location I don't get much except for a partile pr. Sun to n. Moon sextile. His pr. Venus is almost partile trine my n. Sun.

Comparing his pr. chart to my natal reveals his pr. Sun-Mars is partile my Nnode (seen with solar arcs as well) and my Venus widely squares his pr. ASC. However IF I cast his chart to my birth place and then progress it (or regress it rather) then that square becomes tighter or 1,25° sq. And it also reveals another contact, his rel. DSC in my birth place is partile my pr. Venus at the time of his birth.... which would also mean that our ASC/DSC axis are partile in my birth town IF my birth time is 23.27.