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 sifting 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