The problem is that there is no clear drop-off. Aspect strength varies according to partility (that is, according to how close to exact). Technically the connection between two planets never reaches 0 (there is always the potential, in each of us, to forge a relationship between two parts of our psyche), but it does drop below a limen of perceptibility.tarot wrote:I'm currently using The New instant Astrologer for interpreting my natal horoscope. I've noticed that the aspects and orbs being considered in this forum differ somewhat from those mentioned as valid in the book (I note particularly sesquisquare). As the book is over thirty years old, I'd like to know what, if anything, you would change if you could rewrite the book.
Rather than a moderately long article, I suggest you follow a suggestion from Garth Allen. (What I actually do in practice is a variation of this.) Make a list of all aspects in the chart in three columns. In the first column put all aspects 0°-3° wide. In the second column, put all of those 3°-6° wide. In the third column, list all of those 6°-9° wide.
Then, when reading a chart, read the first column first. If you don't have enough information, go to the second column. If you still don't have enough, go to the third column.
In practice, I have varied it thus: For conjunctions and oppositions I make the first column up to 4°, the second column to 7°, and the third to 10°. For squares, I make the first column to 3°, the second to 6°, and the third to 7.5°. For trines and sextiles I do the same as squares, except that the second column slices at 5°. But the principles are the same.
I essentially never look past the second column anymore, though I regard the aspects as technically valid through the third column. I will always give priority to the first column aspects (and, in nutshells as in this forum, rarely mention anything else).
A side effect of this approach is that, if you have a lot of first column aspects, then even second column ones aren't very important in the chart. OTOH, if you have a paucity of first col aspects, then the second col ones become quite important.
An aspectarian example using my own chart.
Code: Select all
1st Col 2nd Col 3rd Col
Mo 60 Ma Mo 60 Ve Su 90 Ma
Me 0 Sa Ma 180 Ju Su 0 Ne
Ve 60 Ma Ma 180 Ur Mo 120 Ju
Ve 120 Ju Mo 120 Ur
Ve 120 Ur
Ve 90 Pl
Ma 90 Ne
Ju 0 Ur
Ju 90 Ne
Ur 90 Ne
Ne 60 Pl
"Squares to the angles" is a misleading and cheating term. There are no real squares to the angles, only conjunctions - those things which appear to be squares are actually other angles. Squares to the Ascendant are the actual Zenith and Nadir and, yes, 3° orb. Squares to the Midheaven actually should be measured in right ascension instead of ecliptic longitude, and the best approximation if you aren't going to separately calculate equatorial coordinates is to use the Eastpoint-Westpoint axis (which is the ecliptical projection of the square to the meridian along the equator) and, again, a 3° orb is appropriate.tarot wrote:Foreground planets: within 10 degrees of conjunction with the angles or within 3 degrees of being square to the angles.
The problem with the angles - which was intentionally skirted over in TNIA - is that proximity to angles shouldn't be measured by zodiacal distance. Not only is it a graduated matter, but it's measured in an entirely different spatial coordinate system, prime vertical longitude. The closest you can come to estimating this in eclitpical longitude is to take the zone from one-third of a Campanus house on the cadent house side to one-half of a Campanus house on the angular house side. Even this is a crude approximation for planets like Pluto and the Moon which can have considerable longitude, but that's the best that can be done with what people normally have. Within that, closer is stronger.