Revisiting natal mundane aspects

[Jim Eshelman]

In contrast, here follow people with a Class 1 SUN-SATURN hard mundane aspect natally. I don't know how many of these remained in their birthplace most of their lives. It's a much shorter list.

Are these people unusually representative of Sun-Saturn? Is there a sense that after they moved from home, this faded in them or they lost it?

Alexander Graham Bell, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Barbara Bain, Claudia Schiffer, Gustave Eiffel, H.R. Giger, Hal Holbrook, Havelock Ellis, Pres. James Madison, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Lois Lowry, Raymond Buckland, Pres. Theodore Roosevelt, Pres. Ulysses S. Grant, Pres. Warren G. Harding

[Jim Eshelman]

I'll do one more for contrast: SUN-MARS Class 1 hard mundane aspects with no matching Class 1 ecliptical aspect. There are some very martial people in this list (even more when you remember that intense mental activity burns just as many calories).

Adele, Alan Watts, Albert Einstein, Albert Hoffman, Angela Davis, Barbara Hutton, Pope Benedict XVI, Beverly Sills, Burl Ives, Empress Catherine II, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Eleanor Smeal, Elias Ashmole, Ellen Burstyn, Pope Francis I, Frank Sinatra, Helen MacInnes, Hera Myrtel, Jerry Rubin, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Judith Butler, Kris Kristofferson, LeAnn Rimes, Leonardo da Vinci, King Louis XIII, Nikola Tesla, Nina Hartley, R.D. Laing, Robert Anton Wilson, Shannen Doherty, Shirley Jones, Pres. Warren G. Harding, Wes Craven

[Jim Eshelman]

As for my own chart, I have a number of mundane aspects that change between birthplace and her in LA (where I've lived for over 45 years). I do think that there is a significant shifting in strength. It's hard to judge whether the mundane aspects completely vanished with the move because they all exist ecliptically.

Here are the Class 1 aspects for birthplace (left) and locality (right) - mundane aspects are shown (M) when they are the closer. Both columns are in order of strength.

Code: Select all

Ma sq Ne 00°07' 100% M   Ju sq Se 00°01' 100% M
Ne op Se 00°11' 100%     Ur sq Ne 00°11' 100% M
Ve sq Pl 00°13' 100%     Ne op Se 00°11' 100%
Ju co Ur 00°17' 100%     Ve sq Pl 00°13' 100%
Ne sx Pl 00°46'  99%     Ju co Ur 00°17' 100%
Pl tr Se 00°57'  98%     Ur sq Se 00°22' 100% M
Ve tr Ur 01°27'  96%     Ju sq Ne 00°33'  99% M
Mo sx Ma 01°31'  95%     Ne sx Pl 00°46'  99%
Ve tr Ju 01°44'  94%     Pl tr Se 00°57'  98%
Me co Sa 02°24'  94%     Ve tr Ur 01°27'  96%
Ur sq Ne 02°00'  92%     Me co Sa 01°36'  96% M
Ur sq Se 02°11'  91%     Mo sx Ma 01°31'  95%
Ma sq Se 02°14'  90%     Ve tr Ju 01°44'  94%
Ju sq Ne 02°16'  90%     Ma sq Se 02°14'  90%
Ju sq Se 02°28'  88%     Ma sq Ne 02°25'  89%
Ve sx Ma 02°57'  83%     Ve sx Ma 02°57'  83%

[SteveS]

Jim, out of curiosity, did Fagan or Bradley mention mundane aspects in any of their writtings? Thaanks

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim, out of curiosity, did Fagan or Bradley mention mundane aspects in any of their writings?

Yes. Bradley would occasionally print a mundoscope as an example, though I think his use all involved angular planets. Fagan, though, often mentioned them, though without ever giving a printed example I can recall. He frequently said the only aspects worth considering usually were the conjunction, opposition, and [words to the effect:] "the square when it approximates the mundane square," which sounds to me like he was saying, "only mundane conjunctions, oppositions, and squares." Somewhere around here I posted (a few months ago) a Fagan quote clarifying he meant aspects in the mundoscope. (He's often interpreted as meaning parans, but that's not what this one explicit quote said.) I'll see if I can find it.

Ah, wait, here it is in the current thread: https://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=16 ... 690#p40690

[FlorencedeZ.]

Hi Jim,
I was wondering, since this topic is a bit older now, does one keep the natal Mundo-scope aspects when one moves?
There has been a great discussion about this but its findings were in the early stages.
For example, mate has a partile Mundo Moon-Jupiter square from birth but it is no longer there in the north of the country.
Regards, Flo

[Jim Eshelman]

Flo, I can't say we have a final answer, though I think we have a stable range of answers. I've written about this in the current draft chapters of the book-in-progress, in Chapter 13 (Mundoscope) and Chapter 15 (Relocation). I'll copy some of that material here as an expanded discussion, but here is my current bottom line:

• I don't think we have a final answer. (This question is terribly difficult to quantify.) We I think we have a stable "working answer."
• Lists of celebrities with mundane aspects (but who haven't lived at birthplace for many years) seems to show the aspect as active (in basically describing them) as ecliptical aspects.
• Other examples suggest that the birthplace mundo aspect at least weakens.
• These could continue working either because (1) they intrinsically keep working, or (2) they establish early patterns in us that, once established, continue to stay in our character unless displaced.
• I think the best practical approach is to consider that the personality features the aspects suggest will persist (either forever, or at least long after leaving the birthplace) but that events suggested by the mundane aspects do not continue.

[Jim Eshelman]

[Excerpted from Ch 13, "Mundoscope," of a work in progress]

Conjunctions, oppositions, and squares in the mundoscope are as important as any other aspect in a nativity. They seem interchangeable, perhaps indistinguishable in effect from comparably close ecliptic aspects. Astrologers miss valuable information by not considering them.

Our predecessors and mentors suggested this idea. I easily confirmed it in the thousands of charts in the large study of major social, political, and natural disaster events... With the encouragement of these results, it became easier to confirm that mundane aspects operate just as strongly in natal astrology (in individual horoscopes).

Every astrology chart,
including every person’s nativity,
simultaneously exists in two frameworks:
one CELESTIAL, based on the ecliptic (zodiac),
and one MUNDANE (local), based on
the prime vertical.
The celestial framework, based on the zodiac, includes all sign placements and ecliptical aspects. It remains unchanged everywhere on Earth, indifferent to geographic location. The mundane framework, based on the prime vertical, includes angularity and everything else innately mundane, including mundane aspects and house positions.

Fascinatingly, the celestial (ecliptic) and terrestrial-mundane (prime vertical) frameworks have the same geometric form. Without dwelling on too many mathematical fine points, both involve a sphere with its own poles (the north and south poles of the ecliptic and the northpoint and southpoint as poles of the prime vertical). Through these poles pass great circles dividing each sphere into twelve equal areas of space, one called signs (celestial) and the other called houses (mundane or terrestrial).

Practical interpretive distinctions may exist between the two frameworks. In any case, it is at least true that celestial (zodiacal) placements and aspects persist independent of our location in the world, while mundane-terrestrial (PV) placements and aspects exist only at one location on Earth and, therefore, link to our place (location) in the world.

This is the practical meaning of “mundane” in the name mundoscope: Mundane structures refer to day-to-day actions and experiences out in the world. Though the line between psychological and physical events is narrow, astrologers historically link mundane structures in the horoscope to our interaction with the world and happenings in that world that are personal to us. For example, this is especially how astrologers have understood houses and may be true of mundane aspects. Mundane horoscopic features anchor us in our practical lives, extrusions into material reality, and expression in the world.

[Jim Eshelman]

[Excerpt from a book in progress, Chapter 15, "Relocation."]

Before we had enough evidence to be confident that mundane (prime vertical) aspects worked in natal charts, one strong indication of their probable efficacy kept presenting itself: Changes in mundane aspects often strongly showed the contrast between someone’s experience of different geographic spots.

That is, when mundoscopes of birthplace and current (relocated) locale show different mundane aspects – some lost from the birthplace, others gained at the new location – this change tends to correctly describe differences in how they experience themselves and their lives in the two spots. Being mundane aspects, usually these gained or abandoned aspects more obviously describe differences in manifest conditions or events.

What remains unclear at the present stage of our research is whether the effects of natal (birthplace) mundane aspects ever go away with relocation. Evidence is mixed. On one hand, consistent with the principle that “you never lose the natal chart,” eminent people with close natal mundane aspects often remain great examples of the aspect even after they move away from their birthplace.

For example, Albert Einstein was born in Ulm, Germany with a 0°55' Moon-Uranus mundane square and a moderate Moon-Pluto mundane opposition that his chart does not have when relocated to Pasadena or Princeton. Was he less brilliant or less quirky at Princeton than he was in Europe? No, of course not. On the other hand, his genius came from many parts of his chart, and he already had decades of experience stirring the neural pathways of his genius and habituating his quirky, outlier personality. His life was far less disrupted and unstable after he came to America than before.

On the other hand, we have examples in which the driving intensity of a mundane aspect eventually abates after someone permanently moves to an area where the aspect no longer exists; or, if an aspect persists with a larger orb, it finds a new proportionate importance in the equilibrium of the psyche.

At present, the best course is to assume that such aspects still operate at least as habituated behavior and perhaps as permanent psychological energies, though less likely to erupt as explicit events.