Needs prioritized

[Jim Eshelman]

I'm currently thinking of a listing after the Cosmic State portion. As a separate listing, plenty of space for both the planet and the need keyword. For angularity "expressiveness" is a good word for what the % means, for aspects "strength", for needs, I'm leaning towards "intensity" which to me seems to capture a bit of both concepts.

Placement sounds great. For needs, I favor "priority" because I don't think it's so much the actual number (as an "intensity" would be) as the ranking within the list. E.g., it would be possible for someone to have their lowest Needs score 90% and still be the 10th item on their list of 10. That means it is "the least pressing need in their psyche." So it seems something like Priority or maybe Ranking is the right word.

I envision the use being to (mostly) fulfill a highlighted sentence in my Planets chapter: "Ultimately, analysis of a horoscope is simply a matter of assessing the RELATIVE STRENGTH of
different shared needs and how they bond or intertwine with each other."

A thought about luminary aspects: imagine Moon partile trine to Venus and Mars square to Moon at about 2 degrees (assuming angularity, dignity, and station were comparable) I submit the Venus need is stronger (closer orb) but less intense than the Mars need, and the individual will be more driven to fulfill their Mars need, to the point that we consider the square in the final need score and disregard the trine.

What I have seen is that the trine won't express as a need. It might be strong Venus traits, but there is no pressure behind it.

The usual psychological definition of needs (at least among "needs theorists") is a physical or psychological imperative that drives action. The soft aspects don't "drive action." There's no imperative in them, no driving force. More of a, "Socialize? Sure, yeah, that's fine, sounds like fun, I'm easy."

So yes, I agree the person in your example will be more driven to fulfill their Mars need, and that's what's meant (i.e., what I mean and the needs psychologists I've read have meant). Based on the primary distinction of urgently demands expressions vs. little urgency for expression, we probably should write Moon square Venus as "requires and strives for connection, relationship, shared pleasure," and Moon trine Venus as "enjoys connection, relationship, shared pleasure" and "kind mindset."

[mikestar13]

Our thinking runs parallel and I agree "priority" is a better word for it. This is important enough that I will code it (for natals) as soon as I finish redoing the Cosmic state report. I will hold off on needs priority for solunars and ingresses until we have a firmer understanding of how to calculate them--the natal formula looks ready to go. This calculation is a breakthrough teaching tool: it well illustrates the central focus of a birthchart in a simplified way a beginner can grasp, but is still useful for the more advanced astrologer.

[Jim Eshelman]

Thanks. I think it's important. Glad you find it valuable.

On solunars, while struggling with it a bit (but mostly just watching it over the next few months), I'm not wholly convinced that there is an equivalent. Definitely premature for that. (I could surely come up with something for ingresses that would be sound, but I'm not sure it's needed, they are so simple.)

I wasn't pushing this until we had a handle on stations. Of course, stations are so rare that I suppose you could always code the Needs Priorities for a variable that doesn't exist yet and let it show up later.

it well illustrates the central focus of a birthchart in a simplified way a beginner can grasp, but is still useful for the more advanced astrologer.

How else might we detect that a Pisces-Aries with Mars rising and a Sun-Venus conjunction has Mercury needs stronger than any of the others

[Jim Eshelman]

As another interesting example, here is our friend Soft Alpaca who initially resisted so strongly the Sagittarian (and generally jovian) characteristics of his chart. If we'd had this tool, how would it work out? - One interesting feature is that he has both Sun and Jupiter luminaries (Sagittarius and Leo) and Sun and Jupiter in the immediate foreground, but they don't compound - we just get the stronger of the two. This is counter-intuitive, but I can't disagree with the results.

Having the whole chart view tips this a bit and I think gives a correct result. The three strongest needs are those for individuation, affection, and authenticity-isolation. Despite Jupiter on IC and a Sagittarius Sun, and a consequent high score, it doesn't fall in the top three most important needs (though one is tempted to grab the top four).

100 - Sun
98 - Venus Pluto
97 - Jupiter
82 - Mercury
60 - Neptune
58 - Saturn
46 - Uranus
36 - Mars
15 - Moon

[mikestar13]

Indeed, much of Pisces can be understood as anti-Mercury. But Mercury definitely fits me as my strongest need. Rather appropriate for a mathematically inclined astrologer and a programmer. Neither of which exactly scream Pisces-Aries.

[mikestar13]

Describes Soft Alpaca to a T. Jupiter is quite powerful, but overshadowed by Sun-Venus-Pluto.

[Jim Eshelman]

I have several examples - but all of Pisces MOON, not Sun - where the important Pisces word "code" is relevant, but in a different sense than cryptography: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Ada Lovelace, John Forbes Nash Jr. - plus "decoders" in the form of major language translation contributors, Johannes Trithemius, Lucy Hutchinson, William Gesenius.

I don't have examples of the same thing with Pisces Sun, though there are similar behaving minds, of which Albert Einstein is at the top. Oh, and Arthur Goode, the "zodiac killer"! Most, though, are deep in the arts and drama.

[Jim Eshelman]

Describes Soft Alpaca to a T. Jupiter is quite powerful, but overshadowed by Sun-Venus-Pluto.

I'm really curious about something I've observed here and there. Too few cases to say it's "a thing," but it rings intuitively true: The chart as a whole can tip whether we are primarily solar or lunar expressions.

Consider Donald Trump: He's a Taurus-Scorpio. Much of his psyche is devoted to the Taurus vs. Scorpio (or Venus vs. Mars) polarity. But he has Mars rising (his only foreground planet) while Venus is in the immediate background and closely conjunct Saturn.

The "leap" in this is that, first, he is going to be a better overall expression of his Scorpio Moon than his Taurus Sun; but, secondly, doesn't that mean he's going to spending most of his life energies acting out his lunar side. Observation shows that this is true: That's he's infantile, hungry, and (I might add and not all would agree) willing to poop and pee anywhere. While he shows his Taurus traits in some very distinctive ways, he's clearly operating primarily as a lunar (infantile) person and especially acting out Moon in Scorpio opposite Uranus plus Mars rising, with a suppressed and hurting Venus.

Alpaca is similar (I don't think he would mind me saying). While he has Sun rising, those top three Needs factors - Sun, Venus, and Pluto - are expressions of his Leo Moon square Venus mundanely and Pluto ecliptically. They summarize his Moon's expression. While he certainly has adult expressions (and far more Sagittarius than it first seemed), I think he'd agree that he lives especially as an infantile, instinctive person. In his case, he's identified to some extent with native tribalism roots which, while a Sagittarian thing in itself, is also a social evolutionary stage that is more instinctual. He's in his mid-20s (not yet Saturn return) and hasn't yet forged his solar-rooted identity.

It's... an evolving thought.

[Jim Eshelman]

George W. Bush - there's stuff in his chart I've never seen (haven't looked at it through TMSA). I knew this would be a heavy Mercury chart (Gemini-Virgo with Mercury rising) and his rising Mercury-Pluto conjunction would get attention. If I'd thought about it, I'd have thought of his Moon-Jupiter conjunction also. I'd never seen his Sun-Neptune mundane square!

Here's the breakdown which (in contrast to the simpler way I'd known his chart) kind of blew me away:

100 - Jupiter Neptune Pluto
98 - Mercury
93 - Saturn
88 - Moon
84 - Sun
69 - Venus
33 - Mars
7 - Uranus

[Jim Eshelman]

His father, George H.W. Bush is a counter-example of the Trump example above. Like Trump, Bush I had a Taurus Sun. However, he also had Venus and Uranus has his strongest needs (100%). Venus came from the Taurus Sun and from a half degree Moon-Venus square. Uranus came from a 4' Sun-Uranus square.

So, of his Taurus-Virgo luminaries (essentially a tension between feeling and thought), Taurus wins. Mercury is also strong in him btw (90%), just not in the top three.

The first thing I might conclude, therefore, is he would act more his Taurus Sun than his Virgo Moon, meaning he would tend to be more of an adult. Both sides are in him, of course - he was fiercely strategic - but this is an example of someone whose Sun-related energies are foremost in his psyche and, therefore, he would tend to come from his Sun.

It's also interesting to me that, as a Taurus, his three lowest needs score are Neptune, Saturn, and Mars. There was little malice in him. (Some considered that a weakness.)

100 - Venus Uranus
97 - Pluto
-------------------
90 - Moon Mercury
88 - Jupiter
69 - Sun
-------------------
44 - Mars
35 - Saturn
17 - Neptune

[mikestar13]

George H. Bush's chart among other things suggests an inclination towards freedom and peace, and it must be remembered that on his watch, Reagan's "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" was actualized.

[Jim Eshelman]

George H. Bush's chart among other things suggests an inclination towards freedom and peace, and it must be remembered that on his watch, Reagan's "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" was actualized.

Yes. And from what I observed (and people who knew him personally have told me), he was a profoundly compassionate man. He and Barbara were deeply loved around town. If his sons have or had any genuine "compassionate conservatism" in them, I know where they got it.

Here's Barbara Bush btw (to which you can add 99% Sedna):

100 - Sun
98 - Mercury
93 - Mars
92 - Jupiter
90 - Moon Venus
75 - Uranus
37 - Neptune
5 - Saturn
4 - Pluto

At a glance, we see that, like her husband, she has Saturn and Neptune in the bottom third. Her luminaries are in benefic signs - Taurus and Sagittarius - but three other planets push Venus and Jupiter lower than in George's list. That Sun and Mars are in her top three isn't surprising at all: She always seemed the domineering, directing figure.

This is as good a place as any to show something I've experimented with trying to find if two people have common values and needs - important for assessing long-term compatibility. First, since it's all about the proportionate mix of the fundamental needs in a person, we rewrite the lists simply giving them ranking numbers from 1 to 10 (or 11 or 12 or whatever). For George and Barbara:

Code: Select all

1 Venus Uranus	1 Sun
3 Pluto		2 Mercury
4 Moon Mercury	3 Mars
6 Jupiter	4 Jupiter
7 Sun		5 Moon Venus
8 Mars		7 Uranus
9 Saturn	8 Neptune
10 Neptune	9 Saturn
		10 Pluto

Then, to see how similar (in each of them proportionately) a given need is, subtract the numbers and tally them by ranked differences:

0 Saturn
1 Moon
2 Mercury Jupiter Neptune
4 Venus
5 Mars
6 Sun Uranus
7 Pluto

This isn't a particularly good example for a long-term couple, and may be one of the examples that has me eventually abandon this. We do learn some interesting things from the list. They are nearly identical in how strong Saturn and Moon needs are in the two of them (lunar needs - perhaps family? - being moderate in both of them, and Saturn needs the least important to both of them). They are least alike on Sun, Mars, Uranus, and Pluto, e.g., willingness to be outside the box and run contrary to expectation (these are both strong in him and at the bottom for her) and tendency to be strong, driving, leading, commanding (Sun and Mars), traits she has very strong and he has moderate-to-weak.

How to use this is a work in progress. It seems it might be a way to alert us to things that are of about equal value to two people, and other things that have significantly different importance to them - part of a deep-dive synastry approach.

[Jim Eshelman]

Continuing the "comparing and contrasting values" or "ranked relative needs" approach, Marion and I come out as follows. This is a really interesting example of how it is the relative ranking that probably matters in such cases: She is a Taurus with a foreground Venus - very venereal - yet (because of her huge number of foreground planets), Venus needs are the EIGHTH strongest needs in her chart, which puts than not far from my DEAD LAST (0%) Venus.

0 Sun
1 Mercury Saturn
2 Venus
3 Moon Mars Jupiter Neptune
4 Uranus
8 Pluto

Our Suns are both moderately high and of exactly the same priority in both of us (4th strongest) - what otherwise looks like our shared 1st house Suns hitting the world with similar boldness. Our Mercury needs are nearly matched (hers 1st, mine 2nd), which makes communication (information sharing) a priority. Our Saturns are equally unimportant proportionately - we place comparably very low priority day-to-day practical things (for good or bad). Our biggest difference is that she has Pluto at 100% strength and I have it at 0% - she would rather be uprooting and heading somewhere else every few years, whereas I'm more inclined to sink deep roots into a spot. (This is helped some by my having Pluto angular where we live, and approximate her needs in this by travelling as often as we can.)

At the very least, this would seem to give an astrological relationship counsellor a lot of raw material to work with.

[Jim Eshelman]

Finally in this set of relative needs ranking, a little something for Mike. I don't know if this will be enlightening, uncomfortable, or boring, but here goes:

Code: Select all

SUE		MIKE		TERRY
1 Venus Saturn 	1 Mercury	1 Pluto
  Uranus Pluto	2 Venus Mars	2 Venus Jupiter 
5 Mars		4 Neptune	  Saturn
6 Mercury	5 Sun Pluto	5 Moon
7 Moon		7 Saturn	6 Neptune
8 Jupiter	8 Uranus	7 Uranus
9 Sun		9 Jupiter	8 Mercury
10 Neptune	10 Moon		9 Sun
				10 Mars 

MIKE-SUE
1 Venus Jupiter
3 Moon Mars
4 Sun Pluto
5 Mercury
6 Saturn Neptune
7 Uranus

Quick assessment: They are most alike in the Venus and Jupiter needs - Venus needs both strong, Jupiter needs both proportionately weak. Their Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus needs vary the most with Sue being strongly Saturn and Uranus (weak for Mike) and Mike moderately high for Neptune (and Sue low). Thumbnail summary: Their Venus needs are both high and matched; otherwise, there is a strong contrast of Sue's Saturn-Uranus needs and nature in contrast to Mike's Neptunian ones.

MIKE-TERRY
0 Venus
1 Uranus
2 Neptune
4 Sun Pluto
5 Moon Saturn
7 Mercury Jupiter
8 Mars

Quick assessment: Their Venus needs are proportionately identical, and of high importance to both of them. Uranus needs are also of similar proportionate intensity, in that they are of low-to-moderate importance to both of them. (Shared high Venus, shared lower Uranus sounds like common values on connection without freedom needs being too forceful.) Terry also has enough moderate Neptune to not be out of touch with Mike's stronger Neptune. - On the other end, their Mars needs are the most divergent, being dead last in the mix of "what makes up Terry," and being a big part of the mix that is Mike. She is Jupiter (and he barely), he is highly Mercury (and her minimally), which would be a counselling area to explore.

Mike, without having to comment on details, would this kind simple assessment have been useful to you when entering into these two relationships? (Or something more polished and thought through?)

And... are there similarities in what Mike is attracted to (besides that Libra thing his Aries Moon and veneral Sun-sign seem to like)?

SUE-TERRY
0 Sun Pluto
1 Venus Saturn
2 Moon Mercury
4 Neptune
5 Mars
6 Jupiter Uranus

If we start with the premise that Mike picked both of these women and, therefore, they are good examples of what he's drawn to, we see that Sue and Terry are most alike in their Pluto and Sun needs: Pluto being a #1 strongest need for both of them and Sun nearly the least. (Even more so since their Sun-signs are anti-solar.)

Next come nearly identical levels of Venus and Saturn - not surprising for two Libras - though this takes the form of both having high affection and material-survival needs. (both 1st rank for Sue and 2nd rank for Terry).

They are least alike in Jupiter and Uranus needs. It seems this would either be stuff not all that important to Mike or stuff that gives a basis for choosing one more over the other. Terry has Jupiter needs strong, Sue has them weak. Sue has Uranus needs strong, Terry has them proportionately weak.

It seems useful to divide these ten into thirds as a thumbnail (like foreground-middleground-background, sort of), taking the top three and bottom three (but picking 2 to 4 depending on groupings). By this, Mike has Mercury, Venus, and Mars needs strongest, and Moon, Jupiter, and Uranus needs weakest in his mix. Sue has Venus, Saturn, Uranus, and Pluto needs strongest in her, and Neptune, Sun, and Jupiter needs weakest. Terry has a nearly identical top mix (but Jupiter instead of Uranus), with her strongest needs being Pluto, Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn, her weakest being Mars, Sun, and Mercury.

PAS - FWIW, Mike I have nearly identical rankings of Mercury (high), Sun (moderate), Neptune (moderate), Saturn (moderate to low). It's interesting that a Virgo and Neptune match on the overall importance of Mercury and Neptune in their psyches. We are similarly low with Jupiter, too; but we are most divergent on the strength of Moon (my strongest, his weakest) and Venus (my weakest, one of his strongest). - This all fits, it seems to me. I find this possibility fascinating.

[mikestar13]

I hadn't considered the similarities/differences between Terry and Sue, but the analysis seems reasonable to me. Of course I've considered it intuitively, but not astrologically. What I've noticed in living out life is that Terry and I are far better at appreciating our differences and using them to mutual benefit than Sue and I (or for that matter anyone else and I) ever did. In particularly Terry treasures and is attracted to my Mercury-Mars (and for that matter Sedna). She was mightily impressed that I not only took a shank for her, but did so without a second thought -- no one she had every loved before would have done that.

[mikestar13]

BTW, with regard to our approach to sidereal astrology, we come at essentially similar position and styles from different paths, both contrary to our sun sign stereotypes. Jim is at heart intuitive, metaphysical, Thelemic (but with strong math and statistics beneath it) while I'm a mathematician and programmer (but with strong metaphysical/mystical awareness with a Christian tinge beneath it). Were I to know only this about us, I'd think Jim was Pisces (maybe with a Virgo Moon or an angular Mercury) while I'd be a Virgo (maybe with a Pisces Moon or an angular Neptune).

[Jim Eshelman]

BTW, with regard to our approach to sidereal astrology, we come at essentially similar position and styles from different paths, both contrary to our sun sign stereotypes. Jim is at heart intuitive, metaphysical, Thelemic (but with strong math and statistics beneath it) while I'm a mathematician and programmer (but with strong metaphysical/mystical awareness with a Christian tinge beneath it). Were I to know only this about us, I'd think Jim was Pisces (maybe with a Virgo Moon or an angular Mercury) while I'd be a Virgo (maybe with a Pisces Moon or an angular Neptune).

With my tongue forced only slightly into my cheek, I sigh and say it must be those heliocentric charts: Your Virgo Earth partile square Mars in Gemini and Mercury moderately opposite Saturn, in contrast to my Pisces Earth exactly square Jupiter (but with a close Mercury-Saturn square).

[Jim Eshelman]

I thought this approach was fully stabilized. However, as I work with it more intently this week, I see I need to make a change.

Previously, a planet dignified in one luminary sign was been given a 90% score or, if dignified in BOTH luminary signs, a 100% score. The two-sign number is too high. It's not hard to contemplate both luminaries being (say) in Mercury signs or Venus signs while another planet is exactly angular. I think the doubled-up dignities should only get a 95% base score. (This, of course, can be increased further by other factors such as that planet's angularity or luminary aspects.)

I will edit the posts above to reflect this so that there is a consistent presentation.