ODdOnLifeItself wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:01 am
Alexander Marr has written that a directional system has to have orbs of less than a quarter of a degree (stated as under 12' of arc), or it's likely that one could find relevant aspects in the lifetime event list, using ANYONE ELSE'S chart. ie. random results, but seeming confirmation.)
The issue of "random" hits is quite important. It's always a struggle in research. In examining an event in a given system, we are (as everyone on this thread knows) looking both for
contacts that are sufficiently close and
contacts that are symbolically correct. To find something reliable, we need to find a balance on
precision vs. elasticity in both of these factors. If we loosen one of them, we have to tighten the other one. In practice, this means that if we use larger orbs, we have to be much more narrow on what contacts we find acceptably descriptive (since there are always enough malefics and near-malefics around to account for any bump of the head); and if, instead, we are more elastic on symbolism, we require narrower orbs.
Integrity of planet symbolism is, of course, key to astrological integrity. So, on the matter of orbs, how narrow is narrow enough?
It helps to keep in mind how common aspects are. The math is slightly different with transits vs. progressions vs. directions because of the number of points used, the different kinds of aspects involved, etc., but the principle is about the same. (Using a 10-planet model, with transits we have 10 transiting factors x 12 natal factors, since we're not usually concerned with transiting angles. With directions, it's 12 moving factors to 12 natal factors. With progressions, it's 12-to-12
plus 66 possible progressed-to-progressed hits.)
For solar arcs, the most common model involves eighth-harmonic aspects. There are eight such aspect points around the circle. Orbs are bilateral (as much on one side as on the other), so this eight doubles to 16.
With a 1° orb, a single planet or angle has 16° of the zodiac within which it is within 1° of a single other planet, meaning a single directed planet A will be within 1° of aspect to a single natal planet B 16/360 of the time, or about 4% of the time. With 12 directed factors moving across 12 natal factors, we have 144 of these possible hits meaning that - purely randomly -
we expect six aspects at any given moment.
You may already thing this way but, in case it's a new idea, think about it for a moment: Using 45°-multiple aspects with 1°00' orbs, we will, on average, have six Solar Arc directions at any moment in time. (Sometimes we have more, sometimes we have less.) If we allow all of these, we place a
very high requirement of symbolic integrity on the aspects themselves: They need to describe the event without much wiggle-room. In practice, what I see myself doing, and tend to see others doing, is that we come up with secondary rules,
e.g., "they all work but the closest are the most important." With this rule, we're more impressed with the closest of the (average) six aspects
primarily describes the event and the others fill in details or supplement the description (or don't apply); and we're less impressed (or not impressed at all) when only one of the widest identifies the event, especially if the closest ones seem contradictory.
I'm meandering a bit. Hopefully, you can meander with me if I stick close to the trail and don't spin off into the grass too much.
We can immediately simplify this
average six aspects at any moment condition by dropping back to 4th harmonic aspects - only counting conjunctions, oppositions, and squares - to reduce the average to about three aspects at a time (which is much more manageable). This is tempting, but most users of Solar Arcs don't find this acceptable. Ebertin quite emphatically used all 8th harmonic aspects indifferently. I find octiles
slightly less impactful, but I think it's only my wishful thinking that makes it seem so, justifying my simply rotating to Solar Arcs for a particular date and looking at the 90° dial to eyeball whether I see anything.
The other strategy to narrow how much we have to juggle at a given point in time is to narrow the orb. BTW (to put it all on the table), my own view is that SAs are valid within 1° and, more often than not (but hardly invariably) tend to have their strongest impact when they're within about a month (5-10' orb) of exact; but in hindsight examination of events, this is far too narrow to find the aspects one is hoping to find. Also, I'm
at least as much interested in state of mind (psychological state) as I am in an event, so I'm not as picky about whether there is an outside event. (I'm not sold on Noel's idea that Solar Arcs need a trigger,
e.g., by a transit: It may be true, it may not. If true, it probably singles out those SAs that seem duds - nothing to trigger them - from the ones that seem astonishingly accurate and well-timed. I simply don't have enough evidence to say this for sure. Ask me in a couple of months when we can look back on how my Saturn-to-Sun and Sun-to-Saturn dual directions have turned out.)
So, on the topic of narrowing the orbs...
As we expect Solar Arcs, using 45° series aspects and 1°00' orbs, to produce about six aspects (on average) at any moment, then cutting that orb to 0°30' cuts that number in half, to about three at a time. This is pretty manageable. A careful reading of Noel's book discloses that what he meant by a 1° orb was, in fact 1° total, or 0°30' on either side. (His examples don't always match that, but it IS what he explicitly said.) Since even Solar Arc aspects seem to follow the "curve" model of aspects - the idea that, once they become effective at all, they gradually become stronger until they peak - I'd have no trouble organizing my Solar Arc experience into the form of, "Yes, they're operative from 1° orb but start to get really serious at 0°30'." In any case, with such a model, we expect only (on average) three aspects at a time.
Or, take Marr's idea of an orb that James quoted: A 0°12' orb (0.2°) gives us an average of
one aspect at a time. It's a strange threshold, if he calculated it exactly, though. The odds at 0°12' or for an average of 1.28 aspects at a time ("about 1"). The place where the odds become exactly 1 aspect on average is 0°09'. Or, the place where the odds are for an average of 1.5 aspects at any given time ("anything closer than this averages 'about 1'") is is 0°14'. (That might be the target Marr was aiming for.)
That's all nit-picking, of course. Aspects operate more widely than that. We should, however, at least not be too impressed with how many aspects we find for an event, and should be impressed more by how
fitting the aspects are for an event.
One more thing on the question of events not happening exactly at peak orb moments: It helps to distinguish between
climate and
weather. This distinction helps us in so many way.
Climate means the range of expected possible weather conditions (with only the most extreme falling outside the range), while
weather is the immediate weather conditions or weather events within that climate. For example, Southern California has a climate that tends to have temperatures in the 52°-to-74° range but with a record low of 36° and record high of 96°. Nonetheless, one can generally expect the weather on a typical Los Angeles November day to run in the mid-50s to mid-70s temperature range. Anything outside this range counts as an
unusual event.
Other intervening factors - varying conditions outside of the immediate average climate - trigger these unusual events. These analogize in astrology to both life conditions and other astrological contributors.
I most often use the climates vs. weather analogy in contrasting the innate pattern within the natal horoscope (one's personal climate) to predictive phenomena (transits, progressions, returns, etc.) that trigger weather. Usually one's "weather" will be within bounds of one's climate (one's innate nature), but the most extreme weather contributors (equivalent to a polar vortex or off-coast hurricane) can hurl personal weather outside the usual climate bounds.
We can apply the metaphor to many other things, though. My most common: The SSR sets the climate of the year with SLRs tending to operate as "high and low pressure areas" creating shorter term "weather" phenomena during that year. (As with Southern California's climate, a good solar return means that "bad weather patterns" during the year will never be as severe as they would be in Minnesota; etc.)
With regard to Solar Arcs, it seems to me that once the aspect comes into about 1° orb, there is a two-year temporary shift in climate conditions. (One can also call this "a vulnerability to a certain kind of event.") Within that "shifted climate," other weather conditions have impact: Other directions (that might be closer at the moment) have impact, or other astrological conditions (transits, returns) mark shifting weather conditions.
Personal life conditions apply to this, too: A sudden increase in personal stress alters how one responds to things. A person wandering into your life suddenly increases the opportunity for a new relationship. A pandemic or its easing modulates the conditions around finding a job.
As astrologers, we'd like to think that all of these shifting life conditions will show in the horoscope, too, but we already know that some shifts align with minor astrological techniques that we don't usually consult. I think it isn't important to try to consult them all because it takes our attention away from the person who has the horoscope: It's functionally better to allow "shifting life circumstances" to, themselves, be factors in our weather forecasting.
] Alexander Marr has written that a directional system has to have orbs of less than a quarter of a degree (stated as under 12' of arc), or it's likely that one could find relevant aspects in the lifetime event list, using ANYONE ELSE'S chart. ie. random results, but seeming confirmation.) 
. All I am saying is: if you don't see major angular symbolism with the 3 above mentioned techniques--more than likely nothing major in life is going to occurr. Of course everyone has their own defintion of "major" life developments pertaining to major life events. Astrological symbolism is all relative to "whats going on" (the processes) in one's immediate living environment, imo, which shape our psychological spheres. Matthew Quellas who was (RIP) one of my main Sidereal Astrology teachers, taught me to weigh potentials for major life developments by the question to yourself: Are there any "out of ordinary" things going on in your immediate environment? If the answer is yes--then better possibilities for major angular symbolism with the above techniques.
[I'm ribbing you.]
