New quantification of angulaity, take two

[mikestar13]

I've been studying Jim's writings about auxiliary angles, and I thought it would be useful to do some Q&A about the topic. I gather that there are three pairs of secondary angles: RA squares to the meridian (Eastpoint/Westpoint), eclictptical squares to the meridian (?/?), and eclipical squares to the horizon (Zenith/Nadir).

1. What orbs should be allowed? the ten degrees suggested in natal work for the major angles is inappropriately wide. Is three degrees about right or would two be better?

2. How does the maximal influence of auxiliary angles stack up to the major angles, For example, is Sun on at zenith exactly quantitatively different than Sun on midheaven exactly? If so, how much different.

3. Are the auxiliary angles quantitatively different from each other: Sun square horizon vs. Sun square meridian vs. Sun on EP? If so, how much?

4. At some latitudes and times a planet can be both on an auxiliary angle and very near a cadent cusp. Does the angularity annul the background status, or do they offset in some way?

These are not simple questions and my inability to answer them to my own satisfaction has kept me from using the auxiliary angles, which is very probably an error. I want to hear from Jim most of all, but I'm hoping the hear experience and ideas from many of you. Thanks.

[Jim Eshelman]

1. What orbs should be allowed? the ten degrees suggested in natal work for the major angles is inappropriately wide. Is three degrees about right or would two be better?

The highest I can justify are 3° for EP/W{ (in RA) and Zenith/Nadir; 2° is tighter and preferred, but 3° will work. I can't justify more than 2° for ecliptical squares to MC.

2. How does the maximal influence of auxiliary angles stack up to the major angles, For example, is Sun on at zenith exactly quantitatively different than Sun on midheaven exactly? If so, how much different.

I don't know what "exactly quantitatively different" means. Are you asking about relative strength. Well, at exact, it's hard to tell a different, but they taper off faster.

3. Are the auxiliary angles quantitatively different from each other: Sun square horizon vs. Sun square meridian vs. Sun on EP? If so, how much?

Probably not.

4. At some latitudes and times a planet can be both on an auxiliary angle and very near a cadent cusp. Does the angularity annul the background status, or do they offset in some way?

AT some latitudes, yes it can, but that's exceedingly rare. In any case, if it's angular then it's truly not background. (That's one reason for not considering the Vertex family "angles" in this sense, since they don't dispel background characterization.)

[mikestar13]

Thanks, Jim this is what I'm looking for. You interpreted my awkwardly-phrased question two correctly.

In terms of expressing it in software, I already have a formula calculating strength (=angularity) for the major angles. I will use a similar curve with a five times faster drop off for the minor angles. Then I'll give a planet the maximum score from major angle, EP/WP, square to meridian, and square to horizon. For example Sun exactly on the zenith would have a maximal score of 100% regardless, while the score for Sun one degree away from the zenith would be the greater of its zenith score and its midheaven score.

[mikestar13]

I've modified my software, and calculated angularity numbers for every planet in every chart in my collection, taking into account the minor angles account perJim's suggestion. Do not neglect them! I gained new insight into virtually every chart with a planet on a minor angle, but not angular by proximity to horizon or meridians. A striking example: female client from the 80's, who had been very forthcoming about herself, including some sexual proclivities that I (alas!) only experienced through description. Both her general personality and her kinks screamed "Pluto", but I could find no warrant for it in the chart using the major angles only, as was my practice until recently. Pluto was unaspected in the twelfth house, mundanely and zodiacally much nearer the the twelfth cusp than the ascendant. I reran her chart today, and woludn't you know it, her Pluto was twenty minutes in RA from the Eastpoint, making it her most angular planet by far. With the powerful Pluto setting the context, her whole chart read her like a book, when I counted the original reading as a bit of a failure (and retrospectively made me regret "only by description" a fair amount more).

[Jim Eshelman]

This is neat!

Plus you can now feel inspired to write the fictional account of what might have been... For your other career.

[mikestar13]

This is neat!

Plus you can now feel inspired to write the fictional account of what might have been... For your other career.

Damn, I'm already writing the story outline in my head--I'll consult some writers who specialize in the genre.

[SteveS]

With all the astrology books I have read, I think Jim was the first astrologer to place much more emphasis on the auxiliary angles of the East-West Point. They are indeed very important--not to be ignored.

[Jim Eshelman]

With all the astrology books I have read, I think Jim was the first astrologer to place much more emphasis on the auxiliary angles of the East-West Point. They are indeed very important--not to be ignored.

In fairness, Bradley in his 1957 introduction, said:

In the lunar ingresses for disastrous fires..., if Mars is not in the immediate foreground, chances are you'll find it exactly [square the Ascendant]. For events of colossal consequences like seismic upheavals, Saturn is apt to be exactly square the Meridian if it is not conjunct an angular cusp itself.

This is essentially the same point. (He treated them equally, or nearly so.) He is also the first astrologer I saw use EP and WP (as they started appearing in AA articles/diagrams; and, near the end of his life, he and Gary did at least one small study in which the EP came shining through.

I had the benefit of all of their work.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

I had the benefit of all of their work.

Yes, and I had the good fortune to cross paths with your work, with your life crossing the path of Bradley. Probably most astrologers do not pay that much attention to EP & WP. Without a doubt, very important angles for astrologers.

[mikestar13]

This is neat!

Plus you can now feel inspired to write the fictional account of what might have been... For your other career.

I did consult with some specialist in the genre, and my "knowledge" of the subject matter is as laughable as most people's. I couldn't begin to write a credible story, especially in this genre, whose readers tend to be petty demanding. Let's just say I've never lifted them hem of this particular garment, nor have I wanted to except in her case. Sounds pretty Pluto to me.