What makes sense as an aspect?

[Arena]

May 17, 2015
I've seen in what you have to say in this forum that you want to emphasize these aspects: conjunction, opposition, square and do not much consider other aspects. And you do not see the square and opp. as hard or difficult aspects.

I was looking at the 360° of zodiac in front of me and just wondering "what makes sense" in how this circle would be divided up ... and my conclusion was that it must be those aspects that divide the circle equally ... there must be a symmetry I think. Did Ebertin and Fagan/Bradley speak about symmetry?

In astrology people speak about 30° aspects as too short a distance, the planets are not able to "see" each other with that kind of distance so it is usually disregarded. Some people do consider the sextiles, but most people consider them weak (but it is indeed an equal partition/division so I thought, maybe they should be considered).

So to me conjunction, opposition, squares and trines do all make sense as very strong aspects - the strongest ones. And sextiles as something to consider as it does make an equal division. The trines is not a perfect division, although it makes a lovely symmetry when it is a grand trine formed by three planets.

I wonder about the quincunx though ... it is not an equal division of that circle, but might make sense to look at IF and only if there is a symmetry like a yod formation. I've noticed some in here consider them, but some don't. Maybe they should be considered when a yod forms.

The semisquare (45°) and quintile (72°) do also make an equal division, but other aspects don't.
Have you noticed those two aspects being important?

Have you noticed that symmetrical formations, like f.ex. a grand trine or grand cross and T-square and maybe a yod are some of the most powerful formations, giving greater impact?

[Arena]

For me, the most important teaching about aspects that I received was when I learned that every aspect between two planets can be understood in terms of analogy with the Soli-Lunar aspects, i.e. Lunar phases.
This perspective gives you a dynamic view on the subject; aspects are formed by bodies in motion, they are phases of a cycle.
In relationship between any two planets, one moves slower and the other faster.
Each cycle lasts from one conjunction of two planets till the next (like the Lunar month, from one New Moon until the next). During the cycle, there are four major "turning points", specific space-time moments when the phase of the tide reaches culmination and turns into another phase; in lunar cycle, those moments are: New Moon (conj.), First Quarter (first square), Full Moon (oppos.) and Last Quarter (second square). These four (three, if we consider the first and second square as the same type of event) time-space points depict the major "crossroads", points of "crisis" (look for etymology of that word!) in the dynamic of relationship between two planets.
The points in between these 4 major points are semi-square and sesqui-square; their principle is the same as that of the major "aspects of the Cross", but on a lesser scale. Perhaps they can be described as "smaller turning-points".

If we look at aspects in a chart from the perspective of observing geometrical patterns, looking for symmetry through the mathematical point of view, we approach them as static and tend to understand them through theory and interpretations (division of circle by this or that number; then we go into theory about the meaning and significance of that number so we derive the meaning of aspects accordingly; etc.). This has its value, of course, but I think that without dynamic observation of astrological aspects as phenomenon we can not actually understand them.

An integral approach that takes both of this views/perspectives into account is suggested by John Addey. I quote from his book "Harmonic anthology" (italic emphasis are by the author):

1. Every point or factor in astrology (whether a heavenly body or a point in the mundane or ecliptic circles) is ideally related to every other point by harmonic intervals, and the symbolic effects which flow from these harmonic relationships in human nativities may be measured in terms of the frequency (or length), amplitude and phasing of the waves associated with them in any class of horoscope.

2. In this connection one may reasonably assume as a working hypothesis that the frequency of a series represents a quality or attribute, the amplitude equals the degree to which it is present, and the phasing represents its relationship to other factors.

3. It is important to understand that each harmonic series (e.g. the division of the ecliptic into 7 waves of 51 1/2 degrees or the 120 waves of 3 degrees) is based upon the working of an ideal symbolic number which immediately establishes every point in the series as of equal force and validity, i.e. , a wave does not appear in one place and die away in another - it is constant round the entire circle and only "disappears" in the sense that its effects may be counteracted at certain points by other series that are also in force.

[Arena]

FWIW, one of the great research efforts by John Nelson left a lasting impression on my mind pertaining to astrological aspects. He proved the so-called hard aspects 180, 90, 45 between planets were associated with producing major sun flare activity. Also, Ebertin’s work clearly proved the 0, 45, 90, 135, & 180 aspects are very important. In my work it is clear the above aspects are the most important for producing dynamic effects with the most focus on partile aspects. Fagan was very partial to the 0, 90, 180, and we see these three aspects associated with the greatest symbol left to us by the ancients-- the Cross +, which when viewed by our eyes with the points of the Cross produce the 0, 90, & 180 aspect. My work has absolutely proven to me when we see a Sidereal Astrology chart with aspects falling on our angular Crosses +, you can take it to the bank for producing ‘outstanding’ life incidents. My work has proven to me the partile 60 & 120 are not to be ignored in Solunar charts but only when angular. Also, I pay attention to partile or very tight Yod aspects. But, my own personal work has definitely proven to me it is the hard or dynamic aspects of the circle being divided by 8 and its multiples which are the most dynamic astrological aspects.

[Arena]

I've copied the section describing aspects, from Interpreting Solar Returns, here: viewtopic.php?t=45

You may find it of value.

[Arena]

Thank you all for your input... was just in the thinking mode about what would be a logical division if astrology makes sense at all

[James Condor]

And is the Quincunx, aka inconjunct, relevant natally and/or in transit?

[Jim Eshelman]

No. And probably not anywhere else (much) either. (Of course, every 10-degree multiple is a valid aspect within a sufficiently tight orb, say 20'-40'.)

[Arena]

And is the Quincunx, aka inconjunct, relevant natally and/or in transit?

Yes, I´ve found it is indeed relevant for natal aspects.

F.ex. look into this thread.
http://www.solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f ... ng+aspects

Not sure about transits, but I have seen that Magi Society puts a huge emphasis on quincunx.
But if it works in natal, I don't see why it shouldn't in transits and progressions.

[Jim Eshelman]

But if it works in natal, I don't see why it shouldn't in transits and progressions.

Most things (including aspects) that work in natal charts do not work in transits. The main reason is that the natal chart is a mixture of dynamic and static forces bending psychological in various ways, whereas transits (being focused on something actually happening - whether psychologically, eventishly, or both) almost never responds to anything that isn't dynamic, "something happening," movement.
'
(I actually allow more room for this in progressions than in a natal, especially around the time it is exact.)

[Arena]

I see what you mean Jim, that something is actually more likely to happen with dynamic aspects, or that it would have bigger effect. But since I've noticed things actually happen and have a meaning with trines as well, I always keep track of them and I do note down quincunxes just to keep track.

If you remember back in 2014-2015 I had a bit of a problem with Venus (past that now) and my SSR for that year shows SSR Venus sq Uranus, but also trine Saturn. The SSR Moon was also trine Neptune. The trines that year did really play a big role in my emotional life.

[Jim Eshelman]

If you remember back in 2014-2015 I had a bit of a problem with Venus (past that now) and my SSR for that year shows SSR Venus sq Uranus, but also trine Saturn. The SSR Moon was also trine Neptune. The trines that year did really play a big role in my emotional life.

Were those all within the SSR, or were they transits? (It sounds like you were saying they were all internal to the SSR.)

[Arena]

They were aspects within the SSR. I guess you would say that you look at them as a sort of "natal aspects" and not same as transit aspects.

[Jim Eshelman]

They were aspects within the SSR. I guess you would say that you look at them as a sort of "natal aspects" and not same as transit aspects.

Yes. I'd expect that to work. I don't know if you have my book Interpreting Solar Returns, but I've always recommended reading a solar return on two separate passages (with no particular relation to each other): Read it once as a stand-alone, specifically as a new nativity, under more or less the same rules you'd use for interpreting a natal chart; then read it twice, with natal planets on the inner ring, in tighter "return chart rules" - hard aspects only, tighter orbs, primary focus on foreground planets (natal and SSR) and their aspects, though including all partile aspects in the narrow aspect set.

So, yes, I'd count all the aspects you named in that SSR

[Arena]

If you remember back in 2014-2015 I had a bit of a problem with Venus (past that now) and my SSR for that year shows SSR Venus sq Uranus, but also trine Saturn. The SSR Moon was also trine Neptune. The trines that year did really play a big role in my emotional life.

OMG, sometimes strange things just happen! Just mentioned this period to you today and speaking of the "devil" in those Venus troubles, he came into contact again tonight around midnight. Didn't really speak to him since Nov 2015 (did wish him happy bday a month ago though) and now as I mention this today, he just pops up on my screen tonight for a long chat.

Anyway, it was a very very friendly conversation. So I checked what are Mercury and Venus doing now. Mercury is tr. his Venus and trine my Pluto (and coming close to possible rectified rel. ASC). Tr.Venus is trine my Jup and sextile my Venus and quincunx my Pluto. Tr. Venus has just passed by his n. Mercury and is trine his n. Moon now as well as being partile opp his SSR Moon.

Anyway, what a funny/peculiar coincidence!

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Gee, it's almost like there's actually something to this astrology thing.
Mercury-Pluto is classic for digging something old out and shining it up a bit before putting it away again.

[Arena]

Gee, it's almost like there's actually something to this astrology thing.
Mercury-Pluto is classic for digging something old out and shining it up a bit before putting it away again.

Yeah, well, it sometimes still amazes me
I have a double Mercury-Pluto going on now, tr. Mercury is trine Pluto and tr. Pluto is quincunx n. Mercury.

[James Condor]

I am not following to my post on inconjunct aspect. Jim said no, not relevant, regardless of transit or natal. And now others are saying yes. Shouldn't it be one or the other.
Say inconjunct aspect is relevant, then It would act like an inconjunct aspect, obviously. But it is important to distinguish between aspect types. I would not assume or expect a conjunction to behave as a square and so on. Inconjunct, I think, implies a sort of awkward energy. 'In', means 'nkt'. So not conjunct. If I am not something, I am just not that something, but, we should not assume that we are another thing just because we are not that something. Of course, we are always something, but, the 'in', means we are specifically not the thing, or suffix. So what is it?

[Arena]

James Condor, the rule of learning anything at all in this world is you never believe one person blindly. You test things. I've found that quincunx is for real as a natal aspect and trines are very important as well.
I am still testing for transits.

Jim does not state that this is untrue, but he has stated that dynamic aspects are more powerful in transit: conjunctions, oppositions and squares.

My view is that yes, even though these aspects may be more of a trigger for something to actually happen, or something big to happen, it does not exclude the other aspects to matter as well.

[James Condor]

Arena, I am not a child. I do not need a lecture. Your assumptions are ignorant.

[James Condor]

I am allowed to say that it is true that many people see things different. I already implied this as my observation. So for you to repeat me but in a ignorant way is silly. I would side with Jim almost any day if the week. 'BLINDLY' is not the issue. The issue is absurd. It has more to to with facts.

[Arena]

I was simply and kindly just answering your post and was not repeating you at all. Nothing ignorant about it at all. There is a lack of "facts" within the astrological knowledge base as we know it now, so we can't really talk about things as facts until they've been tested extensively and I believe this one hasn't really.
Nobody is asking you to "side" with anyone, what a silly and childish thing to say

I am not a child.

Oh really? You certainly behave like one sometimes.

[James Condor]

Okay? You are not an expert on behavior. You do not get to dictate or define what is childish. I don't think your response was at all kind nor very accurate or relevant to mine yet you seem to think it worked. It didn't accomplish anything and I find it discourteous, to put it lightly. I think you took my question too personally as if you were attacked but clearly it should not have resulted in such a defense. I was pretty honest, fair and true in my question. Re read everything. The context. I clearly do not even come close to intending on 'siding' with anyone, as you state. I only used the word 'side' as an example. I have not sided In fact you are the one who is clutching to an experience which implies a dichotomy. It just shows me how sensitive and short minded a response you gave.
Nobody is saying you are wrong for thinking what you think.

[Arena]

You are not an expert on behavior.

You actually do not know if I am

You do not get to dictate or define what is childish.

Oh really? Well in my world I do and you just seem so consistent in your childish behaviour, it really amazes me But then again, I love children and as a "behavioural expert" I've noticed that usually when they behave like this, they just need a good and long hug and they feel much better

James Condor, your answer just shows how you and I really don't resonate with each other. Your latest answer is so far off from what I intended that I don't think you could get any further away from the truth of the matter. You were the one that started that silly notion of "siding"... which is what children often do. You also clearly did not understand my answer to you - I was stating the obvious: that you have to test things in order to know about them. There was no sensitivity nor defence going on at all in my answer. In fact, I do not have emotions about this. I just want to learn things and it is not attached to emotions.

I think you are just being silly and this has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, please keep yourself on track and within the subject. Just go ahead and test things for yourself and stop arguing with others if you don't have anything concrete to put forward. I actually pointed out a thread where I've listed relevant aspects to Jupiter in charts of rich people, where quincunxes can not be ruled out as important.

Just drop it until you do have something.