Hierarchy of Needs

[Jim Eshelman]

Mikestar13 wanted to add this as a three-digit number to the TMSA Cosmic State report at the bottom of each chart page. This requires slight restructuring of the report - probably allowing one less entry per line.

As an alternative, I could see it being the first entry after the vertical bar (i.e., like it's the first aspect) as long as it's in the same spot for each planet and could be read vertically downward. If doing it that way, we currently have 16 characters (including trailing spaces) for the first entry. Of that, "<space>100%<space>" takes six characters, so we can have up to 10 letters in a label. One format might be: Needs Rank 100%, though I'm open to another suggestion. - An even simpler approach is simply "(100%)" followed by 10 spaces; I doubt this would be misunderstood and might be quite intuitive.

Here is how this is calculated for each planet in a given chart (current "final" settled formula). TMSA has all the numbers (% of strength) for what 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.)
• LUMINARY SIGNS: A planet ruling or exalted in the Sun-sign or Moon-sign automatically gets at least 90% strength (or 95% if it is dignified in both luminary signs).
• 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 (that has already earned 90%), then it is at least 95% with a Class 1 luminary hard aspect or 92% for a Class 2 aspect (no extra points for Class 3). [UPDATE: Probably these should add atop 95% if both luminaries have the dignity.]
• STATIONS: A stationary planets gets at least a 75% score. - If it is already 90% as a luminary dignitary, it gets at least a 95% score (5% "bump").

A non-TMSA specific thread is here:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6031&hilit=hierarchy

[Mike V]

Thoughts as I'm reading this...

No planet gets a score higher than 100% by definition.

There are 2 ways we could approach this. Let's assume a scenario where our algorithm initially produces something like this:

Venus: 130%
Mars: 110%
Mercury: 90%
Saturn: 50%
etc.

Approach 1: Just clamp all values at 100%.
This would lead to equalizing Venus and Mars, and making Mercury seem like it's almost as important as Venus when in the initial calculation it's actually quite a bit less important. We end up with:

Venus: 100%
Mars: 100%
Mercury: 90%
Saturn: 50%

Approach 2: Re-score linearly based on the highest raw score (grade on a curve).
This would lead to the highest score being given 100%, and the lower scores being reduced linearly We end up with this:

Venus: 100% (130 - 30)
Mars: 80% (110 - 30)
Mercury: 60% (90 - 30)
Saturn: 20% (50 - 30)

...which I don't really like. Of course we end up with the same problem at the bottom end of the scale, in which we'd have to clamp at 0 as well.

Approach 3: Re-scale logarithmically (I think?) based on the highest raw score.
This is actually a re-scale rather than just grading on a curve. We end up with this if we divide each score by the highest raw score, which I much prefer:

Venus: 100% (130 / 130)
Mars: 85% (110 / 130)
Mercury: 69% (90 / 130)
Saturn: 38% (50 / 130)

What do you think? Re-scaling could let us use flat scores for things (prior to displaying them), rather than conditional scoring. I dealt with this somewhat recently in the game I'm working on, where values for things got brain-meltingly complicated based on conditional logic. When I switched to absolute values and just recalibrating the scale at the end, the complexity dropped a whole lot.

[Jim Eshelman]

I like the thinking, and a few charts (not many) do get squeezed with a lot at the top. However, if I've done everything else right, the score will never cross 100%. (Fully explication below.) The "nothing over 100%" is more of a framing concept and, algorithmically, meant to be a last-step check (if X > 100% then X = 100%) but we should never get there in the first place unless I've missed something.

First, the theory: This is a theoretical measurement of how fully each planet's distinctive need is operating in a person. E.g., do I have 0% of my Venus need strength (nobody has 0% really, so this is "above the minimum human baseline" or whatever) or 100% or what? I also have a pie-chart spread sheet to answer the question, "With these scores, what percentage of the psyche does each need take?" and that's where they REALLY all et squished to the top! (It didn't prove as helpful as I thought it would be.)

Bug the formula as presented should never go over 100% unless I missed something. The key breakthrough was understanding that, for the most part, these scores aren't cumulative.. The scoring (with only two exceptions) is "Of all possible scores, which one score for this planet is highest?" Unlike Astrodynes and other earlier methods, if a planet gets 90% because it rules the Sun sign and 87% for its angularity, this isn't 177%, it's 90%: Ruling Sun's sign floats amps?) the Mercury-themed information needs to 90%.

I then experimented to see where there actually were aggregations. There are a couple. For example, if both luminaries are in Venus signs, that has to be a bigger deal than if only one is, so it gets 95% [previously 100%, but later downgraded] instead of 90%. If Moon is in a Mars sign AND closely aspecting Mars, that's a bigger deal than if it's only one or the other and needs some kind of "bump." Finally, if stations mean anything worth noticing, a planet stationary and also ruling a luminary sign should get at least a slightly higher score than if it only ruled the luminary sign.

But these bumps shouldn't take it over 100%.

Individual factors have the following maximum scores, and the planet only gets one of them (whichever is highest): angularity (100%), luminary sign (90%; or 95% for both), hard major aspect to a luminary (100%), station (75%).

Then the exceptions: (1) a luminary dignitary that also has a major hard aspect to a luminary gets a 5% (Class 1) or 2% (Class 2) add-on to a maximum baseline 95% score. (2) A stationary planet that is also a luminary dignitary gets a 5% add-on to a maximum baseline 95% score. Both of these stay under 100%.


Postscript: There are still a couple of ambiguities about the formula in my head, things I haven't been able to discern carefully enough and might change my mind on in the future. I don't feel any pressure to make up my mind right away, but thought I should mention them.

One question: Should the luminary aspect add-on apply only to the same luminary? For example, is a Scorpio Sun square Mars no more emphatic than a Scorpio Sun existing with a Libra Moon square Mars? Should both give the same 5% bump? Or is the latter case one where the Scorpio Sun gives Mars 90%, and separately Moon square Mars gets whatever score the aspect produces but doesn't "bump" the dignity score?

Second question: Should the 5% add-on for a stationary planet apply not only when the planet is a luminary dignity but also when it is foreground? Doesn't a stationary Pluto angular seem necessarily stronger than a non-stationary Pluto equally angular? We always interpret it as if this is so (at least pay lip service: I don't know that the interpretation changes in a practical way). I haven't done this yet; but this one factor could indeed give us a number that exceeded 100% and would have to be capped as a final step.

[Jim Eshelman]

Marion's natal is a good example because it's darn near everything foreground or in luminary aspect! It's one of the more extreme cases I've seen. (Below, I've recalculated the scores for the Nadir planets from a spreadsheet, since the current TMSA figure is too high.)

Reading from left to right across the TMSA columns:

Sun in Taurus and Moon in Leo set Moon, Sun, and Venus at 90% to start.

Mercury stationary (speed is 0°01'49" but the actual station is less than 10 hours way) gets 75%.

Angularity gives the following by itself (substituting the above if larger):

Mercury 100%
Mars 96%
Sun 90%
Venus 86% 90%
Moon 8% 90%
Neptune 87%
Uranus 85%
Saturn 45%
Jupiter 11%
Pluto 0%

Moon squares Sun 93%. (Both aspect a luminary.) This raises them to at least 93%. But since Moon is a luminary dignity (exalted in Taurus), this Class 1 aspect bumps Moon to 95%.

Moon conjoins Pluto 100% (stronger than Sun square Pluto 97%), so Pluto goes to 100%.

Moon conjoins Uranus 20% (stronger than Sun square Uranus 14%) but this is smaller than the 85% for angularity Uranus already has.

Sun conjoins Mercury 45% but this is already lower than the 100% Mercury has.

With these modifications, we end up with:

100% Mercury Pluto
96% Mars
------------------------
95% Moon
93% Sun
90% Venus
87% Neptune
85% Uranus
-------------------------
45% Saturn
11% Jupiter

[Jim Eshelman]

Yours works out like this:

Sun in Sagittarius, Moon in Virgo, so Mercury and Jupiter get 90% each.

By angularity:

92% - Mars
42% 90 % - Jupiter
23% 90% - Mercury
55% - Sun
45% - Uranus
33% - Neptune
29% - Saturn
38% - Moon
19% - Pluto
1% - Venus

Moon squares Jupiter 92% (stronger than Sun-Jupiter 43%). Because Jupiter is a luminary dignitary, this Class 1 aspect is a 5% add-on.

Moon squares Neptune 100%, Saturn 87%, and Uranus 73% (stronger than Sun-Uranus 65%).

Moon squares Mercury 6% (less than it's current 90%).

With these adjustments, we get:

100% - Neptune
95 % - Jupiter
92% - Mars
---------------------
90% - Mercury
87% - Saturn
73% - Uranus
55% - Sun
---------------------
38% - Moon
19% - Pluto
1% - Venus

[Mike V]

Okay, I see what you're saying. These factors not being actually cumulative is a key point that makes re-scaling not practical the way I was thinking it would be. (My game logic is and must be truly cumulative, which is the differing factor between that and this.)

[Mike V]

By the way, while I'm thinking about this...

For these purposes, you're not considering Mars a ruler of Aries, right?

[Jim Eshelman]

By the way, while I'm thinking about this...

For these purposes, you're not considering Mars a ruler of Aries, right?

Correct. - Except, we do want people to be able to edit their own planetary dignities table, which means that for things like dignity labeling, mutual reception, and needs hierarchy they can have it the way they want. (I think MikeN had been holding off mutual reception until he got the custom dignities list working.)