Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

David Alan Stockman is an American politician and former businessman who served as a Republican U.S. Representative from the state of Michigan and as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. Wikipedia

In the Nov 1991 Issue of American Astrology, Clay Reed wrote a most interesting article on David Stockman, titled “A Short Lesson In Astro-Economics.” It is a very enlightening article about many things including the history of certain economic policies in the USA. Clay writes:

Ten years ago this month (Nov 1981), the Atlantic published “The Education of David Stockman.” Written by David Greider, this article provoked an uproar (from White House) and nearly resulted in David Stockman’s dismissal from his job as Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Stockman soon realized the economic policies of Regan (Reganomics) would cause a severe Recession and basically told the Atlantic a severe Recession will happen by the end of 1982, which happened, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_198 ... %80%931982
Clay’s article is about Stockman’s “Trip to the Woodshed” on Nov 12, 1981, 11:10 AM DC, where Regan almost fired Stockman for his words to Atlantic. Clay posts in his AA article a Tert Progression based on the Math Clay uses which shows dead on symbolism for Stockman’s near firing by Regan. I don’t know how to reproduce this “Reed progression” with Solarfire or I would produce Clay’s most interesting Tert Progressed Chart. But, I can produce a Secondary Progressed Q2 chart for Nov 12 1981 link # 1 below, which shows par-excellent symbolism for this “Trip to the Woodshed” and losing favor from the White House in 1981.
Note the mundane square with p. Q2 Moon on Dsc and p. Mars on MC.
1: https://imgur.com/a/QP0Tzch

Today, Stockman, a Republican, is touring the Country promoting his new book bashing Trump saying a really bad Recession is around the corner with the economic policies being conducted by Trump, link below. Stockman is saying Trump is destroying US economy. Stockman was born in Fort Hood Texas now residing in NY and Clay’s article offers his AA birth data: Nov 10 1946, 12:12 AM EST.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... li=BBnbfcN

Stockman's nativity is quite interesting from the perspective of an economist. Something not readily available from the natal is a mundane square between Jupiter and Pluto (just under 3°), with Jupiter 6°24 past IC and Pluto 9°21' past Asc, to contrast to the ecliptical Jupiter-Saturn square (1°03').

The SNQ is a great example for a day of "taking a whipping." Transits alone are quite interesting, not the least of which is the fact that Moon was conjunct his Moon - it was the hour of his SLR - and occurred two days after his birthday, so there was a brand new SSR.

The SSR has Moon opposite Jupiter-Pluto. Uranus is on IC atop his Venus (partile) and also aspecting his Moon-Mars. The SLR places transiting Sun at MC - he had a meeting with the president - with Ascendant square a Jupiter-Pluto conjunction. Jupiter is closer, he came to the brink, but didn't lose his job. (Natal Saturn and Pluto on WP.)

If I've correctly understood Clay's Tertiary formulation correctly, it has the following partile progressed aspects for this event. It''s fascinating to see tert planets returning to or aspecting their natal places.

p Pluto conj. r Pluto 0°00'
p Venus op. r Neptune 0°01'
p Mercury sq. r Moon 0°09'
p Moon op. p Jupiter 0°12'
p Sun conj. p Mercury 0°18'
p Jupiter ssq. r Jupiter 0°21'
p Sun sq. r Moon 0°27'
p L Asc sq. p Sun 0°32'
p L Asc conj. r Venus 0°34'
p Mars ssq. p Neptune 0°38'
p Jupiter sqq. r Saturn 0°42'
p L Asc sq. p Mercury 0°50'
p Venus tr. r Saturn 0°58'
p L Asc op. r Moon 0°59'

Calculated terts the way I've historically done it gives this, instead (about a day difference in the calculated positions plus several degrees of difference on angles due to a different theory of the progressed angles):

p Pluto conj. r Pluto 0°01'
p Mercury conj. r Venus 0°02'
p Moon sq. p Neptune 0°04'
p MC sq. r Moon 0°07'
p Jupiter ssq. r Jupiter 0°10'
p Venus sqq. p Mars 0°13'
p L Asc conj. r Mercury 0°22'
p L EP conj. p Jupiter 0°40'
p MC op. p Sun 0°43'
p Sun sq. r Moon 0°50'
p L MC sq. r Uranus 0°52'
p Jupiter sqq. r Saturn 0°53'
p Saturn sq. r Sun 1°00'
p Sun sq. r Mars 1°00'

Jim, first, I appreciate your input. I simply don’t fully understand how Clay produce his p. Tert Chart for Stockman’s ‘Trip to the Woodshed.” I will offer you some of his words and maybe you will see/understand where Clay is coming from. Clay says:

Last month, I described a new “quotidian” based on “one primary rotation for one tertiary lunar orbit”: this amounts to “one progressed civil day equals 750.56627 real days.” Because the Atlantic article crises was the most severe of Stockman’s life, this is a good time to test my “Reed progression.” Sure enough, the Reed progression for Stockman’s “trip to the woodshed” shows a transiting Mars-Neptune on the angles (the signature of masochism), while progressed Uranus (Stockman’s shock) is precisely on the IC; progressed Mars and Neptune are also prominent. Transiting Saturn squares progressed Moon. No other chart foregrounds Mars, Saturn, or Neptune. Stockman had no hard transits from Mars or Saturn to any natal, secondary, or tertiary planet. The Reed progressed chart fills the gap.

Jim, do you understand what Clay is doing to produce his above chart described in words? And, if so, can you reproduce a visual chart with Solarfire? "Trip to Woodshed" Nov 12 1981, 11:10 AM EST Washington DC.

As mentioned, I think I understand what he is doing. Can you check the chart you have against say the Moon opposite Jupiter orb I gave in the first list above? - Or, if you still want me to post a chart, did he do angles for birthplace or location?

Clay uses Tropical precession correction. No way I know how to reproduce the chart he has in his article, Tropical or Sidereal, I worked on trying to reproduce for 3 hours this morning. I will try to take a picture of chart and put in link form.

SteveS wrote: Mon Feb 25, 2019 12:54 pm Clay uses Tropical precession correction. No way I know how to reproduce the chart he has in his article, Tropical or Sidereal, I worked on trying to reproduce for 3 hours this morning. I will try to take a picture of chart and put in link form.

You can't exactly. Even if you use Tropical charts and click "precession corrected" for various charts, that doesn't display the longitudes differently, it just affects the aspectarian etc. (I didn't know he displayed it that way.)

But we can do it Sidereally and be true to what he was doing. Can you please check to see if tertiary progressed Moon opposed natal Jupiter 0°06' in the sample? That (and whether it was for birthplace or local) is all I need to know to give you something usable.

Jim, I see no 00,6 Moon-Jupiter 180 in Clay's bi-wheel. His inside wheel is labeled "Reed Progression", outside wheel labeled Transits. The MC 20,30 Sag, Asc 12,51 Pi (Tropical-less precession). Inside wheel Uranus 20,23 Gem. Outside wheel Mars 12,22 Vir, Neptune 22,52 Sag --for his labeled transiting Mars-Neptune Paran. Chart labeled Tropical Campanus.

Headliner from Stockman's new book "Trumped:

In TRUMPED! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin... And How to Bring It Back, David Stockman brings us an insider-turned-iconoclast's report on how 30 years of financial and political misrule by the Washington/Wall Street elites have brought the U.S. to the brink of ruin.

He shows that the Fed's destructive ZIRP and QE policies have buried Flyover America in debt while clobbering it with shrinking real wages and vanishing job opportunities. At the same time, the bicoastal elites have prospered mightily from the massive inflation of financial assets in the Wall Street casino and the debt-fueled expansion of Imperial Washington's domestic rackets and global interventions.

Stockman argues that Donald Trump's improbable candidacy happened because Flyover America has had enough of a rigged system that benefits the few but has failed to delivery economic recovery and real prosperity at home and a safer and more stable world abroad.

Stockman's book is no testimonial on behalf of Trump's candidacy, and contends that much of what he advocates is wrong-headed or downright reprehensible. But it does salute him as the rallying force for Main Street political insurrection because the existing regime of Bubble Finance on Wall Street and statist aggrandizement in Washington threatens incalculable harm.

Stockman also argues that there remains a way forward. He suggests the "political outlaw" who considers himself to be the world's greatest dealmaker would need to "make ten great deals" to bring American back from the brink. These include a Peace Deal, a Jobs Deal, a Sound Money Deal, a Super Glass-Steagall Deal, A Liberty Deal and five more.

In this trenchant, wide-ranging and unvarnished account, Stockman draws on his unique 40-year career in Washington and Wall Street. After a career as a Capitol Hill staffer, two-term member of Congress and ultimately as President Ronald Reagan's budget director, Stockman then went to Wall Street. For two decades as an investment banker and private equity investor he had a front row seat as the nation's financial markets mutated into today's Bubble Finance casinos.

SteveS wrote: Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:25 pm Jim, I see no 00,6 Moon-Jupiter 180 in Clay's bi-wheel. His inside wheel is labeled "Reed Progression", outside wheel labeled Transits. The MC 20,30 Sag, Asc 12,51 Pi (Tropical-less precession). Inside wheel Uranus 20,23 Gem. Outside wheel Mars 12,22 Vir, Neptune 22,52 Sag --for his labeled transiting Mars-Neptune Paran. Chart labeled Tropical Campanus.

For a natal of November 10, 1946, 0:12 am CST, Fort Hood, TX and an event of November 12, 1981, 11:10 AM EST, Washington, DC, the difference in the SVP was 6°00'24" minus 5°31'04", or 0°29'20".

Tertiary Uranus is 22°09' Gemini by what I think is his formula. Adding 0°29' for precession gives 22°38' Gemini, not very close to the 20°23' Gemini you gave.

If all calculations were done correctly (mentioned because it's easy to copy a number wrong or make a simple math error, working without computers in that era), a Uranus Tropical longitude of 20°23' Gemini that had been adjusted for 0°29' of precession means an actual Tropical longitude of 19°54' Gemini. The closet hit I can find to this is his secondary progressed Moon. The Q1 position was 19°39' Gemini, which is still 0°15' off, too much of a discrepancy for even hand-calculation of Uranus from an ephemeris.

It would help if you give the Moon and Sun positions from the inside ring. That would help me narrow what's going on here. Working only from Uranus (and one planet can easily be written down wrong), these results are nothing close to a tertiary at all. (I don't mean just a small adjustment error, I mean something that is vastly, almost unrelatedly, different.) It doesn't match any form of progression I can generate. (The angles are unrelated to anything I see on any form of progression. Let's get the planets right and then worry about the angles.)

Excellent observation Jim and I understand your thinking on this issue, thanks.
Inside wheel Sun 4,54 Sag
Inside wheel Moon 18,25 Cap

SteveS wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:52 am Excellent observation Jim and I understand your thinking on this issue, thanks.
Inside wheel Sun 4,54 Sag
Inside wheel Moon 18,25 Cap

That's not a tertiary at all. Nothing close. The Tropical longitude of Sun is about 90° off (1°29' Pisces for classic terts, 0°11' Pisces in the method that uses the different definition of "day" that Clay favors) and Moon in Cancer.

Are you sure these were meant to be tertiaries? You said it was labeled Reed Progressions. Was he introducing a different method that wasn't terts?

Jim wrote:

Are you sure these were meant to be tertiaries? You said it was labeled Reed Progressions. Was he introducing a different method that wasn't terts?

Jim, I think Clay was introducing a new, possible correct math for terts, but I am not sure. But, I do know this: In the Oct 1991 American Astrology Mag, under an article by Clay titled: More Math for Progressive Thinkers he writes:

Tertiaries
To my knowledge, every available tertiary formula---in print or in software---is incorrect. The error is in equating "day" with "rotation": the chart is progressed one civil day per lunar orbit, whereas it ought to be progressed one rotation per orbit.

Is it a simple matter for you or for Solarfire to take Clay's above quoted progression rate of "one rotation per orbit" for Terts and check to see if this produces Clay's bi-wheel chart for Stockman?

Yes, the calculations I did fit this formula. Even if I'm only a little off, it would still give something very close, but this is way off.

I wonder it this is one of those times a math error snuck into American Astrology?

I understand Jim. Yes, the only thing that explains this is a calculation error by Clay, which he has stated there were some errors in a couple of his published articles, but never named. Does Solarfire have Clay's Tert progression option to chose as an option? Thanks

As mentioned before, I think its what you get if you set on Q1 then do a tert.

Thanks Jim, sorry to repeat the same question again, but at times I get confused on this Q1 issue. I wish I had been able to follow this Q- Q2 issue from the beginning of the early writing from the Siderealist.

SteveS wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:34 pm Thanks Jim, sorry to repeat the same question again, but at times I get confused on this Q1 issue. I wish I had been able to follow this Q- Q2 issue from the beginning of the early writing from the Siderealist.

It's not exactly a Q1 vs. Q2 issue (it's not event a quotidian, or Q). It's knowing how Solar Fire had to have been written, and using it in ways not originally planned by the programmers.

Here's a review of the Q issue and how that applies to using this trick in Solar Fire:

Secondary Progressions have long been stated as 1 day (symbolic time) = 1 year ("real" time). This definition seems perfectly clear and complete until you realize that there are different meanings of the words "day" and "year," i.e., different kinds of day and year.

For the present discussion, there is no question about the meaning of "year" large enough to digress and make this more complicated, so I'll skip it for the moment.

Two kinds of day are the civil day and the sidereal day. The sidereal day is the time it takes Earth to spin once on its axis: that is, the time it takes for the Midheaven to spin back around to the same longitude.It's 23:56:03 of clock time. (Your MC is 6°25' Leo. Set up another chart for 23:56:03 later, or September 21, 1947, 9:56:03 AM, and the MC is again 6°25' Leo.)

The civil day is the day we know by our clocks. It is the average length of time between two consecutive culminations of Sun (two consecutive sundial noons). I say "average" because Sun moves at different speeds during the year, so during part of the year it takes less than 23:56:03 for MC to spin around and catch it on the next pass, and sometimes it takes more. On average, though, since Sun moves about 1°/day, Midheaven has to advance an extra 1° to catch up to it. (Sun on MC today at 13° Aquarius means it will be on MC at 14° Aquarius tomorrow: the MC has move an extra degree to "close the gap" and catch up to Sun.) Therefore, the civil day is about 4 minutes of time longer than the sidereal day (on average, 3 minutes 56.56 seconds longer.

Just to avoid confusion in the very easy next step, make sure you understand the difference between sidereal day and civil day: A sidereal day is the time it takes Earth to rotate (MC back to the same MC); a civil day is the average time it takes Earth to rotate AND for MC to catch up to Sun (about 4 minutes longer).

Now we're ready for the definitions: On the formula of "1 day = 1 year," one theory is that one sidereal day = 1 year; another theory is that one civil day = 1 year. The first (sidereal day) is the Q1. The second (civil day) is the Q2. That's all there is to it.

Since the sidereal day is about 4 minutes shorter than the civil day, the Q1 angles lose about 1° a year (or, to say it the other way: Q2 angles gain about a degree a year). At age 71, we would expect (for any particular day) that the Q2 MC would be about 71° ahead of the Q1 MC (or, more exactly, 3m57s x 71 = 70°). Since the Q2 chart is calculated at 71 for a time 4h40m later than the Q1, and Moon moves about 1° every two hours, at this age Q2 Moon will be about 2° later in the zodiac than Q1 Moon.

So much for secondary progressions.

Now, in Solar Fire when you flip the Q2 switch to Q1, all Solar Fire has to do is change the definition of "day" that it uses. When you pick Q1, it uses sidereal day. When you pick Q2, it uses civil day. It doesn't make a whole new formulation, it just changes one value. This is really useful to know because we might be able to apply it in other situations that the Solar Fire programmers didn't anticipate.


Which brings us to tertiaries...

Tertiary progressions are based on the formula 1 day (symbolic time) = 1 month ("real" time). "Month" is understood to be a sidereal month - the time it takes Moon to circle the Earth, or about 27.3 days. Again, we have to identify what "day" means. Historically, it has been understood to mean a civil day. That's what was meant by Troinski when he reinvented them in modern times, by Lyndoe when he poplarized them, and by Bradley when he gave them a further push.

So, when you use Solar Fire to calculate tertiaries, you are getting 1 civil day = 1 sidereal month.

Clay - if I have understood his intention correctly - is proposing that a sidereal day should be used instead of the civil day. His formula of 1 sidereal day = 1 sidereal month is identical except the formula uses a different length for day. I discovered that if you set the Q2/Q1 flag to Q1, Solar Fire uses the sidereal day definition, so - even though it's not per se about quotidians - you can trick Solar Fire into using the 1 sidereal day = 1 sidereal year formula.

It's just a trick.

Thanks Jim for taking the time for your most excellent explanation, I definitely understand the math much better now. I think I understand Fagan favored the Q1 and Bradley the Q2, and I know with your work you favor the Q2. I guess Solarfire programmers function both the Q1 & Q2 options with a understanding that astrologers use both progressed rates?

SteveS wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 4:32 pm I think I understand Fagan favored the Q1 and Bradley the Q2, and I know with your work you favor the Q2.

It was more that way than the other way, but more nuanced than that.

Fagan invented the Q1. His inspiration was a technique popular 100 years ago called the Diurnal Chart. The Diurnal Chart is a chart you cast every day for the same time of day you were born. (Think of it as the same GMT you were born, which helps work around confusing time zone differences.) For example I was born at 4:13 AM CST so, wherever I am, my Diurnal Chart would be for 2:13 AM PST or 313 AM PDT.

The Diurnal Chart is exactly - exactly! - the SNQ1 for the moment it is calculated.

Fagan thought the Diurnal Chart concept was wrong, but he apparently thought it performed well. He realized (alone? with help?) that it was a a better form of secondary progressions. Probably by working with Jimmy Hynes, he invented his famous Bija table which was one way of manually calculating the Q1 (not necessarily the easiest, and never explained well).

It's fair to say that most of the rest of his life he favored the Q1 or, at least, pushed it forward.

Bradley (like pretty much everybody) learned the Q2 originally - it was the standard secondary progressions ever taught - but certainly stopped and looked at the Q1 as he came to know Fagan's work. He even wrote a book on the U.S. horoscope dedicated to its use.Then, over the years, he began doing side by side comparisons of such things as angle contacts and closer Moon aspects. The Q2 always - always! - came out much better. He'd occasionally look at both,but had already pretty solidly switched back to the Q2 at least by 1957 when he published his research and discoveries on Sidereal mundane astrology.

Bradley's determination of the boundaries of the Sidereal zodiac were based entirely on the Q2, though there wouldn't have been much error (only at the end of a year) if he'd been wrong.

Bradley inherited Fagan's chart collection and notebooks. He wrote me that, in the last years of Fagan's life he was starting to slide toward the Q2 more. Repeatedly there would be a chart with the annotation something like, "Q2 better" penciled on it.

I always look at both the NQ1 & NQ2 in my work, which can't hold a flame to the amount of research work you and Bradly did favoring the NQ2. But, i have seen enough solid NQ1 hits which will never allow me to ignore the NQ1. If, I can remember I will try to site some examples in my life and research experience for huge events comparing the Q1 & Q2. Also, I will try to remember to cite some forward dates I see with interesting Q1 & Q2 comparison for observational purposes. Thanks Jim for your informative post in this matter with Fagan, You & Bradley.