Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

Arena wrote:I've been thinking of mundane astrology and the question why so many solar ingresses? I have not yet read much about mundane astrology.
If we think of the SSR as the period chart for a person, then why don't we have one chart for the year in mundane astrology as well, instead of so many ingress charts? Or does sidereal astrology look at the Arisolar as the most important ingress, that sets the tone for the year?

I can see in the chapter about Mundane astrology in Primer of sidereal astrology by Fagan that all ingresses into the cardinal signs are thought to be important and that Carter and Garth Allen have suggested that the ingress into Capricorn would be the most important chart that sets the tone for the year. I've also been reading the posts from Jim in this forum about the ingresses, but I am just wondering if there is a hard core conclusion to be seen somewhere that I can read about? Which chart stands out as chart of the year?

I've often found good sources in skyscript forum, and I found this one that explains also what the planets stand for in mundane astrology (we also have sources in here).
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/ingresses.html

...and at the top of that page it says:

"... the true time from whence judgement is to be raised for the exact knowledge and predicting of future natural events in the Elements for any year, is when the Sun enters the first point or minute of Aries"
- William Ramesey, Astrology Restored, 1653

Jim Eshelman wrote:

Arena wrote:I've been thinking of mundane astrology and the question why so many solar ingresses? I have not yet read much about mundane astrology.
If we think of the SSR as the period chart for a person, then why don't we have one chart for the year in mundane astrology as well, instead of so many ingress charts? Or does sidereal astrology look at the Arisolar as the most important ingress, that sets the tone for the year?

It's the Capsolar, not the Arisolar.

And yet, here is one distinction: The solar and lunar ingresses are quite explicitly not a master and demi and two quartis. All four are valid for the entire year - each is like a new natal. But they vary in strength, the Capsolar being by far the strongest, the Cansolar about 75% as strong, and the Arisolar and Libsolar about 25% as strong.

All of this is detailed and broken down in Chapter 4 of Sidereal Mundane Astrology, "Working Principles."

I can see in the chapter about Mundane astrology in Primer of sidereal astrology by Fagan that all ingresses into the cardinal signs are thought to be important and that Carter and Garth Allen have suggested that the ingress into Capricorn would be the most important chart that sets the tone for the year. I've also been reading the posts from Jim in this forum about the ingresses, but I am just wondering if there is a hard core conclusion to be seen somewhere that I can read about? Which chart stands out as chart of the year?

Yes, there is a hard core conclusion as to which is the Master Chart of the Year. It's the Capsolar. (That information is in the facts you presented.) However, there is not a single ruling chart that works in the absence of considering the overlap and interweave of the others. But the Capsolar is dramatically superior to the others and the Arisolar and Libsolar are dramatically lesser - except in their own quarters, or of the Capsolar or Cansolar have nothing to say.

I want to add a bit to this while I have a few minutes. I'm wondering if your inquiry is really about whether we can make the system simpler. I'm certainly trying to make it as simple as I think the facts justify, and I wanted to revisit a couple of steps along the way.

In May 2014, I wrote a report called The Master Charts in which I asked the question of whether only looking at the Master Charts of the year, month, and day - the Capsolar, Caplunar, and Capsolar-based daily timing (CapQ + transits to Capsolar) - we could adequately identify the events.

A first conclusion was that no, these aren't enough at all; but, it seemed, perhaps a slight compromise on the simplicity would work of very selectively using the Cancer-based tools to back it up. So, the main test involved using the Capsolar unless it was dormant, and then using the Cansolar; using the Caplunar unless it was dormant, and then using the Chart of the Week; and using the CapQ if it gave information and, otherwise, falling back to (what was then thought to be the best mix) the Capsolar transits and the Cansolar equivalents. This approach would allow all Capricorn tools (Capsolar, Caplunar, CapQ) to be used exclusively if they gave information, and to have a well-regulated, simpler backup approach if they had nothing to say.

I defined a mundane event as predictable when the relevant astrological charts match (1) a specific time, (2) a specific place, and (3) an event of a specific nature. Time means within the terms of the chart, place means within a narrow geographical location, and nature of the event means one that it conforms to the nature of the astrological factors then occurring. The question was: With the more limited tool selection, how often were events predictable?

I should probably repeat this study with the larger data set now available, and with some refinements I have learned in the intervening year and a half (partly fed by this study); but here's what I learned then:

Out of 150 events, 114 were predictable by the above definition. That's 76% of the time. That's a pretty low figure, and is disappointing. Subjectively, the descriptions were also "not as full and nuanced as when we use the entire toolkit." Conclusions were that the Master Charts are, indeed, impressive as far as they go, and that limiting ourselves to this narrower approached moved us further from accurately identifying events than if we use a more complete toolkit.

Layering in the "deputy" charts to supplement the Cap-only approach was a good move. It improved performance an extra 5 percentage points in each category (yearly, monthly, daily).

I did a preliminary update of the Master Charts study - numbers only, nothing subjective at this stage. The basic results were essentially unchanged, with the score of qualifying events being 77% instead of 76%. (I tweaked the definitions very slightly, using most recent non-dormant lunar ingress as the overflow chart instead of the simpler current chart of the week. This made no meaningful difference.)

Here's a little more granularity:

Of 211 events, 163 had Year, Month, and Day scores all +1 or +2. This is 77%.

If we drop the Day requirement and only require Year and Month to match, this changes very little: 170 of 211 = 81%. The smallness of the change is likely due to the daily charts being the most reliable overall.

Switching tactics - since the CapQ and weekly lunar ingress are the most reliable - I dropped the Year requirement and used only Month and Day. This gave 181 of 211 charts as predictable, or 86%. This is starting to get somewhat respectable, though not spectacular.

The conclusion remains that relying only on the Master Charts and their most immediate layer of backup (when they have nothing to say) is pretty good but not spectacular - we need a more complete picture. (I have some other modelling to try now that you've gotten me on this track a bit.)

I did a preliminary update of the Master Charts study - numbers only, nothing subjective at this stage. The basic results were essentially unchanged, with the score of qualifying events being 77% instead of 76%. (I tweaked the definitions very slightly, using most recent non-dormant lunar ingress as the overflow chart instead of the simpler current chart of the week. This made no meaningful difference.)

Here's a little more granularity:

Of 211 events, 163 had Year, Month, and Day scores all +1 or +2. This is 77%.

If we drop the Day requirement and only require Year and Month to match, this changes very little: 170 of 211 = 81%. The smallness of the change is likely due to the daily charts being the most reliable overall.

Switching tactics - since the CapQ and weekly lunar ingress are the most reliable - I dropped the Year requirement and used only Month and Day. This gave 181 of 211 charts as predictable, or 86%. This is starting to get somewhat respectable, though not spectacular.

The conclusion remains that relying only on the Master Charts and their most immediate layer of backup (when they have nothing to say) is pretty good but not spectacular - we need a more complete picture. (I have some other modelling to try now that you've gotten me on this track a bit.)

Jim Eshelman wrote:

Arena wrote:Yes Jim, I was indeed thinking if there was one chart that would give the tone for the entire period. That would simplify things a lot.

And there is one that has the strongest tone... but it isn't along.

The metaphor that has served me best all the way through the SMA work has been a small chorus of singers. The Capricorn singers have the loudest voices, Cancer the next loudest, and Aries and Libra have the softest. Furthermore, each singer, in its own time quarter or week, steps down to the microphone and gets amplification (though the loudest voices are not lost beneath even the softest voices amplified).

Occasionally, all the louder voices go silent, and the softest ones come through clearly.

Sometimes, are or many all singing the same note (the same planetary idea) or compatible notes (similar but distinct planetary ideas), and then the song takes on a clearer, more penetrating character. Other times, they are singing highly divergent passages, and then there is no clear piercing message, it sounds more cacophonous, though the loudest voices probably still are heard best over top the others.

When looking at the intricacies of the many charts for a given event, this is the picture that arises repeatedly, that best seems to model how all the pieces fit together.

If anything would make sense it might be that the first solar ingress of each year, but then again, the universe does not care about our definition of a year maybe and maybe there is not a real start of a year, it is just going in cycles. And then I thought, well the zodiac is round and all the signs are of importance, so maybe there is no "first" month or "first" or most important solar ingress. Maybe they are all equally important and maybe we shouldn't think of them otherwise. If solar ingresses are of importance, then they might be of equal importance. That seems to be the case from your test study in last post.

I don't think it's calendaric. I think it's something intrinsic to 0° Capricorn as a master point, or lead point, of the zodiac.

Also, they aren't of equal importance. That's been looked at extensively. Every major study of this from Bradley's original 1957 work forward has been clear that they are not at all equal - that there are clear, decisive leaders vs. followers - but that they are all, in fact, valid. All solar ingresses are valid for 12 months, but the quietest ones get masked (outside their own quarters) by the loudest ones. Bradley thought the proportionate strength of the Capricorn : Aries : Cancer : Libra solar ingresses was 4:1:2:1 (Cap twice as strong as Can, and Can twice as strong as Ari and Lib). I'd adjust this to 4:1:3:1, since the Cansolar continues across time to show as 70-75% as strong as the Capsolar.

by Jim Eshelman on Tue Nov 03, 2015 8:49 pm

On the issue of whether they are all equal, here are some figures from Chapter 27, "Quantifying the Techniques," from the current edition of Sidereal Mundane Astrology. These figures show the Capsolar to be of high value throughout the year, and the Cansolar (the next strongest) to be of substantially reduced value except under specialized situations.

The Capsolar by itself, across the whole year, is 88% accurate. (I'm writing this in abbreviated, brief form. This, and other similar statements below mean that 88% of the examples have a +1 or +2 score, i.e., were good or great. It also only counts non-dormant examples, since the essence of dormancy is that we act as if the chart simply isn't there.)

So... Capsolars alone, across the whole year, are 88% accurate. If we look only at the first quarter of the year (before another new ingress overlays it), this jumps to 96% accurate.

Cansolars, however, if treated as full-year charts,

If the Cansolar is used only as a half-year chart, for the first six months after it occurs it is 89% accurate (and 92% accurate if we look only at the quarter, the first three months after it occurs). However, in the second half of the Cansolar year (Sun in Capricorn through Gemini), the Cansolar is only 74% effective - a vastly lower score that makes it essentially useless.

Where it gets interesting is when we look at how the Capsolar's activity level affects the Cansolar's behavior. In the Capricorn through Gemini part of the year (the second half of the Cansolar year), if we look only at those occasions where the Capsolar is dormant or has a zero score (meaning, nothing specific enough to give a clear message), then the Cansolar is 91% effective instead of 74%. The Capsolar's activity level is the switch that controls this.

Something similar happens with the Arisolar and Libsolar. If we take the Arisolar, Cansolar, and Libsolar, each for its own three-month period, their reliability is 88%. However, if we take only those examples where the Capsolar is dormant or zero, the quarterly solar ingresses leap to 94% reliability. When the loudest voice is silent, the softer voices sound through.

So... Capsolars alone, across the whole year, are 88% accurate. If we look only at the first quarter of the year (before another new ingress overlays it), this jumps to 96% accurate.

If the Cansolar is used only as a half-year chart, for the first six months after it occurs it is 89% accurate (and 92% accurate if we look only at the quarter, the first three months after it occurs).

Jim Eshelman wrote:

Arena wrote:Is it possible that those cardinal solar ingresses are indeed only to be read for their "own term" as in one quarter of a year?

No, the Capsolar clearly operates strongly across the whole year, and the Cansolar clearly has layered relevance across the year depending on circumstances. Even an Arisolar (for example) can be seen to be operative across an entire year if, for example, all the other solar ingresses are dormant so that it is "the loudest voice singing."

OR that the Capsolar and Cansolar are half year charts and not whole year charts?

Nope. See above. This is analyzed quite exhaustively in Chapter 27 of SMA.

Jim Eshelman wrote:

Arena wrote:...the solar ingress charts show much more accuracy when you look at only the first quarter in non dormant charts. Going from 74% accuracy up to 96% accuracy is A LOT.

Just to be clear, I think the numbers you are looking for are 74% to 91%, and those numbers apply only to the Cansolar, not to (for example) the Arisolar or Libsolar.

The specific findings are:

1. Normally the Cansolar is of little use in the last half of its year (when the Sun is in Capricorn to Gemini). During that second half, its accuracy was 74% in the test charts.

2. However, in the cases where the new Capsolar is dormant, the Cansolar accuracy for the Capricorn to Gemini months leaped to 91%.

3. This supports and clarifies the observation that, absent an expressive Capsolar, the Cansolar takes on the role of Master Chart of the Year.