Needs Hierarchy / Planet Rankings in Solunars

[Jim Eshelman]

Reference to the following tactic in natal charts:
https://www.solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6031

Now that I consider this stable, the next step is to see how it applies most suitably to summarize a solar or lunar return.

The stable formula in a natal chart is as follows:

• No planet gets a score higher than 100% by definition.
• ANGULARITY: Start by listing the planet % strength based on angularity. (TMSA factors in both major and minor angles.) This is the minimum score a planet can have.
• LUMINARY SIGNS: A planet ruling or exalted in the Sun-sign or Moon-sign automatically gets at least 90% strength (or 100% if it is dignified in both luminary signs).
• STATIONS: A stationary planets gets at least a 75% score. - If it is already 90% as a luminary dignitary, it gets an additional 5%.
• HARD LUMINARY ASPECTS: Each planet conjunct, opposite, or square Sun or Moon gets at least the score of that aspect's strength. - If the planet is a luminary dignitary (already earned 90%), then its minimum score is 95% with a Class 1 luminary aspect or 92% for a Class 2 aspect (no extra points for Class 3).

This obviously doesn't apply as written to a return chart if for no other reason than that sign placements are irrelevant in solunars. There is also ambiguity about luminary aspects (I'm sorting through that).

[Jim Eshelman]

Stripping out sign references from the above natal chart protocol leaves the following as a STARTING POINT:

• No planet gets a score higher than 100% by definition.
• ANGULARITY: Start by listing the planet % strength based on angularity. (TMSA factors in both major and minor angles.) This is the minimum score a planet can have.
• STATIONS: A stationary planets gets at least a 75% score.
• HARD LUMINARY ASPECTS: Each planet conjunct, opposite, or square Sun or Moon gets at least the score of that aspect's strength.

I'm happy with all of this as written EXCEPT I'm sure the luminary aspect line is too simple - it doesn't match certain technical considerations or the end result.

One thing of which I'm sure: In a solar return, conjunctions, oppositions, and squares to SSR Moon get the score for that aspect all the way out to Class III aspects. That actually creates a complication, because we don't usually have aspects out to Class III for a return chart, so those have to be calculated separately for this to be right.

BTW, for return charts TMSA, by sound design, only counts aspects that are foreground PLUS all SSR Moon aspects. However, "aspects" above is not distinguished by grounds. HOWEVER, in practice that problem will vanish with what I think are the operative rules.

I think the ranking is working exactly according to the way we've figured out return charts best work: For example (based on several samples I ran this morning of recent charts), Sun aspects don't get an independent voice in either solar or lunar returns. Also, while Moon aspects are "always go" in the SSR, they generally don't get an extra voice in the SLR.

There is one exception I haven't been able to test: Much as (in a natal) luminary aspects get an "add-on" boost if they are luminary sign dignitaries, I wonder if foreground luminary aspects in a return chart get an extra minimum add-on boost if the luminary aspect is foreground.

My initial proposal for a test model is:

• No planet gets a score higher than 100% by definition.
• ANGULARITY: Start by listing the planet % strength based on angularity. (TMSA factors in both major and minor angles.) This is the minimum score a planet can have.
• STATIONS: A stationary planets gets at least a 75% score.
• (POSSIBLE) HARD LUMINARY ASPECTS: Each planet conjunct, opposite, or square Sun or Moon in the foreground gets at least the score of that aspect's strength. However, the score shall be at least the planet's angularity score +5% for Class 1 luminary aspect or the planet's angularity score +2% for Class 2 luminary aspect (no extra points for Class 3). Natal planets get no luminary add-on if the aspect is an ecliptical aspect already existing in the nativity (always there).

Finally, while transiting vs. natal planet lists should be calculated separately, they should then be combined: Not added, but taking the larger score of natal vs. transit of the same planet. Example to follow.

[Jim Eshelman]

As an example, here's what I get for my December 1, 2022 SLR (TMSA gives 15:15:34 UT; the return occurred at home). When a foreground luminary aspect affects the score upward, I've written it in parentheses after but kept the unmodified score as the primary score. - This was a complicated chart (despite no natal planets foreground), so a good example.

TRANSTING
99 - Jupiter
97 - Venus
96 - Mars
89 - Sun (Moon sq gives 99%)
87 - Moon Mercury (Moon sq Mercury gives 100%)
82 - Neptune (Moon co Neptune gives 100%)
32 - Pluto
4 - Saturn
1 - Uranus

NATAL
65 - Moon
59 - Sun
39 - Neptune
38 - Venus
35 - Mars
32 - Jupiter Uranus
9 - Saturn
4 - Pluto
3 - Mercury

COMBINED
99 - Jupiter
97 - Venus
96 - Mars
89 - Sun
87 - Moon Mercury
82 - Neptune
32 - Uranus Pluto
9 - Saturn
1 - Uranus

[Jim Eshelman]

TRANSTING
99 - Jupiter
97 - Venus
96 - Mars
89 - Sun (Moon sq gives 99%)
87 - Moon Mercury (Moon sq Mercury gives 100%)
82 - Neptune (Moon co Neptune gives 100%)
32 - Pluto
4 - Saturn
1 - Uranus

The question of whether luminary aspects (if foreground) give any greater priority stands out in this chart. If we go ONLY by angularity, the transiting planets (the only ones foreground) rank like this:

99 - Jupiter
97 - Venus
96 - Mars
89 - Sun
87 - Moon Mercury
82 - Neptune
32 - Pluto
4 - Saturn
1 - Uranus

However, if add the effect of the foreground luminary (Moon) aspects, we get a different picture:

100 - Mercury Neptune
99 - Sun Jupiter
97 - Venus
96 - Mars
87 - Moon
32 - Pluto
4 - Saturn
1 - Uranus

The fact that I have so clear recollection of the month is, by itself, something of a tip to Mercury-Neptune; but OTOH the month doesn't stand in memory as primarily a Mercury-Neptune type of month. (It was convincingly a Jupiter + Venus sort of easy holiday month.) I wrote few impressions of it here and my overall memory is that it was somewhat nondescript. The new book was in minor (private) circulation, work was easy for the month, I was in the office alone the last half of the month.

This is the kind of distinction I'll be tracking for a while.

[Jim Eshelman]

The formula are probably right but the concept is wrong. This proved pretty useless the few months I watched. Didn't improve clarity at all.

No objection to it, I'm just not fond of it.