Assessing the Asc/MC midpoint

[Jim Eshelman]

As has been discussed many times on this forum over the years, there are strong opposing views regarding the Ascendant/Midheaven midpoint (hereafter called A/M). On the one hand, founders and leading proponents of Cosmobiology have granted it significant importance - as they have done with all midpoints of two personal points, but perhaps more. On the other hand, there are several strong structural concerns about this point: at worst, its existence contradicts well-documented, well-researched basics and, at the very least, it makes those fundamentals more complex and weakens the ease of our using them.

However, neither side of this question has been supported by anything resembling formal study. Nor do we have enough data to do that now. I propose, however, to at least provide some initial data that lets us start thinking about this outside the framework of single case examples. (We don't have more than a small fraction of the number of test charts to allow a true statistical examination.)

Please understand that questioning this one midpoint - A/M - is not a questioning of the value of midpoints overall. Any midpoint involving an angle has theoretical issues, though I think I've found a path to resolving those problems. (At least superficially, it looks like ecliptical midpoints involving angles can't exist if several other things we think are true are actually true; but I think I see a way around this.) A/M amps up these issues considerably.

Nonetheless - actual behavior (evidence) needs to trump theory. Theories need to be molded to accommodate things found to be true. We just have to be very sure that they are true before we start remodeling the theory.

I begin this project highly skeptical of whether A/M exists as a valid midpoint at all. I'm not decided firmly against it, but I'm weighted heavily against it. Part of this is the necessary position of evidence-based astrology: Reject every premise then stand ready to have your mind changed if it overwhelms your ability to reject it. I'm willing to have my mind changed it consistent, impersonal hard evidence shows I'm wrong.

Reinhold Ebertin wrote that A/m "should always be examined as this frequently has a bearing on the whole personality and because directions over this point may result in a change of life and circumstances." This thread is for the examination of his first premise, that it "frequently has a bearing on the whole personality" - I have no interest in addressing predictive matters in this thread. (I think those should come later, once the significance with regard to character is determined, especially since Ebertin mentioned this first, as at least an equal consideration.) Of course, the way Ebertin in particular and Cosmobiology in general would apply this involves much more than planets on the midpoint: They would study the entire axis. Not many people have a planet on the A/M midpoint, but nearly everybody has other midpoints conjunct it. This is how Cosmobiology would treat any axis. But for this thread I'll limit myself to the issue of planets on this point.

It has been asserted that A/M has the force and importance of an angle, that contacts to it (though of smaller orb) are akin to contacts with an angle. Is this true? That should be easy enough to assess with enough data. (With 100 times as much data, we could do a Gauquelin-like professional and character trait study that could be compared against Gauquelin's findings for the planets near angles. But we don't have data like that.)

I have nearly 1,000 well-timed public figure charts well-distributed by Sun-sign and other features. I have identified which of these has any planet within 1° of conjunction, opposition, or square of the ecliptical half-sum of Midheaven and Ascendant. I regard all of these as direct midpoint contacts to A/M since I find no difference in strengths between squares and conjunctions to the half-sum; but, in any case, these four points are all midpoints between the horizon and the meridian, either of Asc/MC, MC/Dsc, Dsc/IC, or IC/Asc. Even these numbers are small. I currently have 930 examples in the data pool, of which 777 have no planets within a degree of one of these midpoints. This leaves 153 examples, or 16% of the total. (We'd expect 22%, so this is already interesting: This number is unusually low, so my 930 public (mostly eminent) examples has a lot fewer contacts with these points than the population overall.

On the next post, I'll list everyone in the data pool that has each planet in partile contact to A/M. I suggest they be assessed against the assertion that these planets should act much as they would if exactly on an angle. As a further resource, though, and out of fairness to Cosmobiology's teachings, here are Ebertin's specific interpretations for each planet on A/M:

Sun: The relationship between body and soul, a person's attitude to other persons. The man in his sphere of life and activity. - Going together, living together, attitude to the male principle in general.

Moon: One's personal attitude to life as governed by feeling, the seeking of a cordial understanding with others, a person guided primarily by instinct. - Attitude to the female principle in general. Association with the female sex.

Mercury: Exchange of thoughts, the use of one's critical faculties. - A frank discussion between people, cooperation in the scientific or commercial sphere.

Venus: A sense of beauty, the desire to have harmony and beauty in one's surroundings, art-interests. - Personal attachment.

Mars: The individual in action, a positive attitude towards one's family and one's colleagues. - Successful team-work.

Jupiter: The optimist, the desire for gaiety and social entertainment within the family-circle. The ability to share joy and merriment together with others, the ability to make oneself popular with other people. - Joy and success.

Saturn: The inhibited type, feelings of inferiority, moods of depression. - Superstition, mourning, or bereavement.

Uranus: An excitable person, emotionalism, quick determination. - Sudden experiences, excitement or upsets, a spoiling of one's plans.

Neptune: Feeling ill at ease in one's circle, emotional suffering, the necessity to hide one's true nature buy feigning, simulating, or pretending. - The misfortune to be surrounded by deceitful or bad people, the experiencing of disappointments.

Pluto: An unusual person in unusual surroundings, a fascinating personality. - The power to exerciwse a strong influence upon the people in one's environment.

[Jim Eshelman]

Sun = A/M
Aretha Franklin, Ernst May, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Farrah Fawcett, Janet Baker, King Edward VIII, Kourtney Kardashian, Lord Byron, Pat Nixon, Paul Simon, Pres. John F. Kennedy, Priscilla Presley, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Sandra Bernhard, Sarah Bernhardt, Sen. John Glenn, VP Kamala Harris

Moon = A/M
Amb. Caroline Kennedy, Carole King, Charles Baudelaire, Czar Ivan the Terrible, Dan White, David Copperfield, Dr. Dre, Eva Braun, Gen. George B. McClellan, Julia Child, King John I, King Louis XIII, Lizzie Borden, Margaret Millard, Marion Cotillard, Peggy Fleming, Pres. Bill Clinton, Rep. Helen Gahagan Douglas, Sally Eaton, Speaker Paul Ryan, VP Kamala Harris

Mercury = A/M
Amanda Knox, Cher, Chloris Leachman, Christa McAuliffe, Czar Alexander I, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Ghislaine Maxwell, James Eshelman, King Charles VIII, Marlon Brando, Meryl Streep, Michelle Pfeiffer, Tammy Faye Bakker, Wes Craven

Venus = A/M
Dakota Fanning, David Letterman, Eddie Van Halen, Gen. Jeb Stuart, J. Pierpont Morgan, Karen Silkwood, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Margaux Hemingway, Maria Swanenburg, Nicolas Cage, Raphael of Urbino, Starhawk, William Penn

Mars = A/M
Drew Barrymore, Friedrich Engels, Giorgio Armani, Gladys Knight, Kris Kristofferson, Larry Flynt, Leonard Cohen, Lisa Marie Presley, Lorenzo de Medici, Martin Luther King, Morgan Fairchild, Niccolo Machiavelli, Oprah Winfrey, PM Margaret Thatcher, Stacey Abrams

Jupiter = A/M
Diane Arbus, Donna Brazile, Giuliana De Sio, PM Jawaharlal Nehru, Jeff Bridges, Jesse Jackson, John Milton, Julie London, Maria Swanenburg, Melissa Etheridge, Omarosa Manigault, Queen Consort Mary, Rep. Sonny Bono, Richard Krafft-Ebing, Ronan Farrow, Rowena Jackson, Sen. Cory Booker, Tina Turner

Saturn = A/M
Alexander Fleming, Angela Davis, Bernie Madoff, Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh, Dick Clark, Donald A. Bradley, Eric Idle, Hal Holbrook, K.D. Lang, Marsha Norman, Neil Armstrong, PM Julia Gillard, Richard Pryor, Ringo Starr, Rosalind Russell, Wm. Randolph Hearst, Yo-Yo Ma

Uranus = A/M
Amber Tamblyn, Angelo A. Buono Jr., Ava Gardner, Beverly Sills, Cheech Marin, David Koresh, George R.R. Martin, Jackie Coogan, Laura W. Bush, Lena Horne, Luther Burbank, PM Winston Churchill, Pres. Richard M. Nixon, Sharon Tate, Stacey Abrams, Sylvia Plath, Wes Craven

Neptune = A/M
Alfried Krupp, Ferdinand von Zeppelin, Helen MacInnes, J. Paul Getty, Jane Roberts, Jerry Lewis, Jim Morrison, King George VI, Linda McCartney, Margot Honecker, Matt LeBlanc, Michelangelo

Pluto = A/M
Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh, Chloris Leachman, Gustave Flaubert, J. Paul Getty, John Holmes, King Ludwig II, Leonardo da Vinci, Lizzie Borden, Maria Swanenburg, Oprah Winfrey, Pat Nixon, Peter Fonda, Will Rogers

[Jim Eshelman]

What follows is a first impression. I can't guarantee it will be a final impression after research and discussion.

Scanning these lists, I find several interesting "hits" and also several clear "misses." I'm looking with an eye to: Is this planet acting in the natal chart as if it were closely angular?

Find some clear seeming hits and clear seeming misses doesn't mean much by itself. In any random set of data matched against any real or imagined astrological theory, the elasticity of astrology makes it certain that we'll find cases that (randomly) look like a clean hit; and, astrology being so complex, on any valid technique, there will always be a few seeming failures.

Nonetheless, a good starting place might be mentioning some of these first impression hits and misses.

We have to screen out obvious "nobody can tell" cases. For example, does my Mercury exactly on A/M make me a "mercurial person"? Nobody can tell because my Virgo Sun already defines me that way (and there is nothing more fundamental to character than luminary signs). There are other examples, like Ronan Farrow for Jupiter (but a Sagittarius) - nobody can tell. Same with Milton.

But I was initially impressed when I saw Sun for Aretha Franklin. VP Harris' exactly Sun-Moon opposition falls exactly on her A/M (but does this make it any stronger? that opposition is SO STRONG regardless of where it falls - her Su/Mo at A/M makes for an important midpoint axis in any case). Jane Roberts of Seth Speaks fame, who has one of the most pragmatic, non-mystical, non-woowoo charts I know, has Neptune here (though perhaps her function in bringing through the Seth material didn't require an actual mystic but, rather, someone grounded in the "real world"?). I'm impressed with how many music talents have Jupiter on the point: My sample pool has a lot of music celebrities but none of the other lists hits quite the same note as the Jupiter list. Mars for Larry Flynt (mass market flesh peddler and free speech warrior who is shot and permanently disabled) makes sense.

OTOH the misses are also notable - I think maybe much more demanding of attention. The single worst case in the batch may be King Edward VIII who has Sun at A/M. This is the king who abdicated, who never really wanted to be king and certainly didn't want it more than the woman he loved. Everything else in his chart speaks of anti-royalty - it's an exceptionally good chart! - and this seems his real character. To suddenly find Sun at a point alleged to act like an angle undoes all of that. I don't think it's real. I think he was extremely anti-solar.

On Edward VIII I thought perhaps Sun = A/M at least meant some issue or foretold some eventual crisis that would be set off when the aspect was set off. The obvious point was his abdication. But at his abdication there were no directions to this point and no transits to his Sun that would have been consistent with a crisis. I'm only impressed with how unimpressive this placement is.

There are too many under Moon that just don't fit, especially when I consider the Gauquelin findings confirming how contrary to Mars in character Moon is (opposite angularity effects for occupations and also for character traits). Moon on A/M gives us Ivan the Terrible, Gen. McClellan, the great warrior King Louis XIII. Even if we count that King John was weak and murderer Dan White was an over-compensating wuss, some of these names just don't fit. I am intrigued, though, with Lizzie Borden having Moon and Pluto on this axis; but would her Moon-Pluto square have been any less dramatic no matter where it fell in the chart?)

The Mercury list I find unconvincing, despite Burroughs and Christa McAuliffe. So many names on the list are emotional forces, not data-driven: Consider only Brando, Cher, Wes Craven (and some others).

Venus gives us on significant artist and several "nice folks," and shouldn't be discredited for one significant general. It has several possible fits but nothing overwhelmingly obvious. Maria Swanenburg is the absolute worst case!

Mars has a mix - unsure how to read it. The single best example is Margaret Thatcher, called the "Iron Lady" but with no iron-ruling Mars to be found until now. (I think they got their metal wrong and it was her Saturn they were seeing; nonetheless, after years of saying, "So where's her Mars?" I have to acknowledge it's on A/M.) Several are... misfitting, or mixed messages. Do we call Martin Luther King a Mars type because he was a justice warrior even though he was the century's second greatest advocate for peace? (It's already complicated by his having a Capricorn Sun, so maybe I shouldn't consider him.) One doesn't think of Giorgio Armani on the Mars end of the Venus-Mars polarity (though, like King, he was murdered). Oprah's important Mars-Pluto square is here (but she's also a Capricorn - we can't necessarily distinguish this from her Sun sign - and the aspect was a big part of her regardless).

Saturn has Bernie Madoff but, otherwise, nothing that really impresses me. William Randolph Hearst with Saturn at A/M is at least questionable (one could argue for it if one had to) and probably just wrong. Several of these flourished due to using their controversy to their advantage (which is not usually thought a Saturn trait).

For Uranus, George R.R. Martin arguably could be Uranian, Stacy Abrams may fit as well, and Cheech Marin always liked to upset the establishment applecart (before he became full bore establishment), but mot of these don't fit. Richard Nixon was far too Neptunian to be Uranian.

Neptune has no decisive standouts either way besides maybe Jane Roberts and Michelangelo. (The others easily argue a little pro or a little con or both.) Pluto is somewhat persuasive because most listed are quite unusual and not quite like anybody else - the whole range from John Holmes to Oprah Winfrey (with da Vinci and Rajneesh in the middle).

I think my first impression is what I said at the top of this post: You can argue that some of them are quite good and that some of them are quite bad - as in any random data set. Overall, they don't impress me as showing groups of people who match each planet type. I think the failures (mismatches) are more dramatic than the matches.

[Veronica]

In looking at the celebrities who have a luminary at this midpoint, I ask myself...do these people seem more masculine (Sun) or more feminine (moon) and I actually felt that most were the opposite.....less so. Paul Simon, who I adore is not the epitome of Masculinity nor is Farrah, quite the opposite.

My midpoint is 7 Aries and I have no planets close by any of the 4 points. That point is also my Mercury/Venus point, as well as my Pluto/Moon/Neptune/Jupiter....I am still sorting thoughts about that combination and if it has any real relevant meaning or adds details or emphasis to my unfolding character.

I can easily comprehend planet midpoints...its like blending colors. But the Mc and Asc arnt colors afaik so I'm confused on how they blend, but I'm feeling it's like mixing black and white, a very grey area, and if a person did have a planet there then it would possibly be muted, washed out, or diffused.

[Jim Eshelman]

My midpoint is 7 Aries and I have no planets close by any of the 4 points. That point is also my Mercury/Venus point, as well as my Pluto/Moon/Neptune/Jupiter....I am still sorting thoughts about that combination and if it has any real relevant meaning or adds details or emphasis to my unfolding character.

Let's take a look. On a 90° sort, you have the following midpoints on your A/M. After each, I have listed my preferred general principle of the midpoint's character.

• Ju/Pl (15'): Outlier ambition, singular, extraordinary achievement or fall.
• Ne/Pl (40'): Conception, worldview-forging, surreal, uncertainty.
• Me/Ve (53'): Social engagement, play; or intellect opposed to feeling.

[SteveS]

I can only speak about this A/M issue with my own detailed life experiences over 77 years. I have a DIRECT midpoint of A/M = Neptune (1,08). By far—this has been the most important chart point for my entire life with many, many direct life experiences, but one would have had to live my life to truly understand the details to realize that the Cosmology School of Astrology was dead-on correct with their detailed research into the importance of the A/M midpoint with certain parameters. When my r MC d over this DIRECT A/M Midpoint = Neptune-- the most important event in my entire life happened. The details of this timed life event were stunning relative to my entire life.