Steve & Jim - examples of mundane angle contacts
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 10:06 am
From a conversation with Steve this morning, it occurred to me to give another example of how to use the following new tool in synastry:
http://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1544
The question, not fully resolved in my mind, is whether synastry contacts of one person's planets to another's angles should be taken mundanely or ecliptically. To dig into this, we need to look at examples. I posted the John Dee vs. Queen Elizabeth example above, and it had some fascinating mundane angular contacts that don't appear in the ecliptical contacts. It's only one case, though... so we should look at more.
Take, for example, Steve's chart in comparison to mine. First, let's note some important ecliptical contacts to angles:
2°20' Vir J's Asc
2°50' Vir S's Sun
7°27' Vir S's Venus
27°55' Lib S's Asc
29°42' Lib S's Jupiter
1°53' Sco J's Venus
These are all quite good and fine as they stand. They show strong marks of friendship, mutual affection, and respect, which is a nice context for, say, our partile Mars-Mars opposition (that has usually worked out like team mates on the same competitive team rather than as conflict). (There are other aspects, too, but they don't apply to the present questions. Our charts are available to anyone on this forum, so of course feel free to look on your own.)
And we know without looking that Steve's Sun to my Asc is going to be the same mundanely as ecliptically (Sun always has no latitude), and his Venus won't get a lot closer. The interesting one is the question of whether my Venus gets closer to his Asc and even to his Jupiter. Maybe it's a bad example because the aspects are all fine either way, but I wanted to check it anyway.
So, grab a copy of the spreadsheet linked above and make one for Steve - using the ST, latitude, etc. of my birth chart on tab 1 - and one for me, using the ST, latitude, etc. of Steve's birth chart on tab 1, and here's what we get:
0°00' J's Asc
0°29' S's Sun
4°29' S's Venus
Notice that the Venus is, indeed, a little closer, but, as expected, not much. (About half a degree.) Anyone using a 5° orb would not have counted it ecliptically, and would have counted it mundanely, but they're about the same.
0°0' S's Asc
1°30' S's Jupiter
6°27' J's Venus
For this one, the orbs get wider. This chart pair is a better argument for taking these ecliptically. For example, my Venus conjoins Steve's Jupiter 2°11' ecliptically and almost 5° mundanely - the ecliptical between the planets is much better. My Venus is about 4° from his Ascendant ecliptically and six and a half degrees mundanely - again, the ecliptical is better.
So... this gives the opposite leaning as the Dee-Elizabeth charts. It isn't a perfect example, because the contacts are all arguably valid either way we measure it. Nonetheless, the relevant orbs are tighter on this example ecliptically.
This is just me doing the foot soldier work of cranking out one example after another.
http://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1544
The question, not fully resolved in my mind, is whether synastry contacts of one person's planets to another's angles should be taken mundanely or ecliptically. To dig into this, we need to look at examples. I posted the John Dee vs. Queen Elizabeth example above, and it had some fascinating mundane angular contacts that don't appear in the ecliptical contacts. It's only one case, though... so we should look at more.
Take, for example, Steve's chart in comparison to mine. First, let's note some important ecliptical contacts to angles:
2°20' Vir J's Asc
2°50' Vir S's Sun
7°27' Vir S's Venus
27°55' Lib S's Asc
29°42' Lib S's Jupiter
1°53' Sco J's Venus
These are all quite good and fine as they stand. They show strong marks of friendship, mutual affection, and respect, which is a nice context for, say, our partile Mars-Mars opposition (that has usually worked out like team mates on the same competitive team rather than as conflict). (There are other aspects, too, but they don't apply to the present questions. Our charts are available to anyone on this forum, so of course feel free to look on your own.)
And we know without looking that Steve's Sun to my Asc is going to be the same mundanely as ecliptically (Sun always has no latitude), and his Venus won't get a lot closer. The interesting one is the question of whether my Venus gets closer to his Asc and even to his Jupiter. Maybe it's a bad example because the aspects are all fine either way, but I wanted to check it anyway.
So, grab a copy of the spreadsheet linked above and make one for Steve - using the ST, latitude, etc. of my birth chart on tab 1 - and one for me, using the ST, latitude, etc. of Steve's birth chart on tab 1, and here's what we get:
0°00' J's Asc
0°29' S's Sun
4°29' S's Venus
Notice that the Venus is, indeed, a little closer, but, as expected, not much. (About half a degree.) Anyone using a 5° orb would not have counted it ecliptically, and would have counted it mundanely, but they're about the same.
0°0' S's Asc
1°30' S's Jupiter
6°27' J's Venus
For this one, the orbs get wider. This chart pair is a better argument for taking these ecliptically. For example, my Venus conjoins Steve's Jupiter 2°11' ecliptically and almost 5° mundanely - the ecliptical between the planets is much better. My Venus is about 4° from his Ascendant ecliptically and six and a half degrees mundanely - again, the ecliptical is better.
So... this gives the opposite leaning as the Dee-Elizabeth charts. It isn't a perfect example, because the contacts are all arguably valid either way we measure it. Nonetheless, the relevant orbs are tighter on this example ecliptically.
This is just me doing the foot soldier work of cranking out one example after another.
