Assessing the Asc/MC midpoint
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2024 5:58 pm
As has been discussed many times on this forum over the years, there are strong opposing views regarding the Ascendant/Midheaven midpoint (hereafter called A/M). On the one hand, founders and leading proponents of Cosmobiology have granted it significant importance - as they have done with all midpoints of two personal points, but perhaps more. On the other hand, there are several strong structural concerns about this point: at worst, its existence contradicts well-documented, well-researched basics and, at the very least, it makes those fundamentals more complex and weakens the ease of our using them.
However, neither side of this question has been supported by anything resembling formal study. Nor do we have enough data to do that now. I propose, however, to at least provide some initial data that lets us start thinking about this outside the framework of single case examples. (We don't have more than a small fraction of the number of test charts to allow a true statistical examination.)
Please understand that questioning this one midpoint - A/M - is not a questioning of the value of midpoints overall. Any midpoint involving an angle has theoretical issues, though I think I've found a path to resolving those problems. (At least superficially, it looks like ecliptical midpoints involving angles can't exist if several other things we think are true are actually true; but I think I see a way around this.) A/M amps up these issues considerably.
Nonetheless - actual behavior (evidence) needs to trump theory. Theories need to be molded to accommodate things found to be true. We just have to be very sure that they are true before we start remodeling the theory.
I begin this project highly skeptical of whether A/M exists as a valid midpoint at all. I'm not decided firmly against it, but I'm weighted heavily against it. Part of this is the necessary position of evidence-based astrology: Reject every premise then stand ready to have your mind changed if it overwhelms your ability to reject it. I'm willing to have my mind changed it consistent, impersonal hard evidence shows I'm wrong.
Reinhold Ebertin wrote that A/m "should always be examined as this frequently has a bearing on the whole personality and because directions over this point may result in a change of life and circumstances." This thread is for the examination of his first premise, that it "frequently has a bearing on the whole personality" - I have no interest in addressing predictive matters in this thread. (I think those should come later, once the significance with regard to character is determined, especially since Ebertin mentioned this first, as at least an equal consideration.) Of course, the way Ebertin in particular and Cosmobiology in general would apply this involves much more than planets on the midpoint: They would study the entire axis. Not many people have a planet on the A/M midpoint, but nearly everybody has other midpoints conjunct it. This is how Cosmobiology would treat any axis. But for this thread I'll limit myself to the issue of planets on this point.
It has been asserted that A/M has the force and importance of an angle, that contacts to it (though of smaller orb) are akin to contacts with an angle. Is this true? That should be easy enough to assess with enough data. (With 100 times as much data, we could do a Gauquelin-like professional and character trait study that could be compared against Gauquelin's findings for the planets near angles. But we don't have data like that.)
I have nearly 1,000 well-timed public figure charts well-distributed by Sun-sign and other features. I have identified which of these has any planet within 1° of conjunction, opposition, or square of the ecliptical half-sum of Midheaven and Ascendant. I regard all of these as direct midpoint contacts to A/M since I find no difference in strengths between squares and conjunctions to the half-sum; but, in any case, these four points are all midpoints between the horizon and the meridian, either of Asc/MC, MC/Dsc, Dsc/IC, or IC/Asc. Even these numbers are small. I currently have 930 examples in the data pool, of which 777 have no planets within a degree of one of these midpoints. This leaves 153 examples, or 16% of the total. (We'd expect 22%, so this is already interesting: This number is unusually low, so my 930 public (mostly eminent) examples has a lot fewer contacts with these points than the population overall.
On the next post, I'll list everyone in the data pool that has each planet in partile contact to A/M. I suggest they be assessed against the assertion that these planets should act much as they would if exactly on an angle. As a further resource, though, and out of fairness to Cosmobiology's teachings, here are Ebertin's specific interpretations for each planet on A/M:
Sun: The relationship between body and soul, a person's attitude to other persons. The man in his sphere of life and activity. - Going together, living together, attitude to the male principle in general.
Moon: One's personal attitude to life as governed by feeling, the seeking of a cordial understanding with others, a person guided primarily by instinct. - Attitude to the female principle in general. Association with the female sex.
Mercury: Exchange of thoughts, the use of one's critical faculties. - A frank discussion between people, cooperation in the scientific or commercial sphere.
Venus: A sense of beauty, the desire to have harmony and beauty in one's surroundings, art-interests. - Personal attachment.
Mars: The individual in action, a positive attitude towards one's family and one's colleagues. - Successful team-work.
Jupiter: The optimist, the desire for gaiety and social entertainment within the family-circle. The ability to share joy and merriment together with others, the ability to make oneself popular with other people. - Joy and success.
Saturn: The inhibited type, feelings of inferiority, moods of depression. - Superstition, mourning, or bereavement.
Uranus: An excitable person, emotionalism, quick determination. - Sudden experiences, excitement or upsets, a spoiling of one's plans.
Neptune: Feeling ill at ease in one's circle, emotional suffering, the necessity to hide one's true nature buy feigning, simulating, or pretending. - The misfortune to be surrounded by deceitful or bad people, the experiencing of disappointments.
Pluto: An unusual person in unusual surroundings, a fascinating personality. - The power to exerciwse a strong influence upon the people in one's environment.
However, neither side of this question has been supported by anything resembling formal study. Nor do we have enough data to do that now. I propose, however, to at least provide some initial data that lets us start thinking about this outside the framework of single case examples. (We don't have more than a small fraction of the number of test charts to allow a true statistical examination.)
Please understand that questioning this one midpoint - A/M - is not a questioning of the value of midpoints overall. Any midpoint involving an angle has theoretical issues, though I think I've found a path to resolving those problems. (At least superficially, it looks like ecliptical midpoints involving angles can't exist if several other things we think are true are actually true; but I think I see a way around this.) A/M amps up these issues considerably.
Nonetheless - actual behavior (evidence) needs to trump theory. Theories need to be molded to accommodate things found to be true. We just have to be very sure that they are true before we start remodeling the theory.
I begin this project highly skeptical of whether A/M exists as a valid midpoint at all. I'm not decided firmly against it, but I'm weighted heavily against it. Part of this is the necessary position of evidence-based astrology: Reject every premise then stand ready to have your mind changed if it overwhelms your ability to reject it. I'm willing to have my mind changed it consistent, impersonal hard evidence shows I'm wrong.
Reinhold Ebertin wrote that A/m "should always be examined as this frequently has a bearing on the whole personality and because directions over this point may result in a change of life and circumstances." This thread is for the examination of his first premise, that it "frequently has a bearing on the whole personality" - I have no interest in addressing predictive matters in this thread. (I think those should come later, once the significance with regard to character is determined, especially since Ebertin mentioned this first, as at least an equal consideration.) Of course, the way Ebertin in particular and Cosmobiology in general would apply this involves much more than planets on the midpoint: They would study the entire axis. Not many people have a planet on the A/M midpoint, but nearly everybody has other midpoints conjunct it. This is how Cosmobiology would treat any axis. But for this thread I'll limit myself to the issue of planets on this point.
It has been asserted that A/M has the force and importance of an angle, that contacts to it (though of smaller orb) are akin to contacts with an angle. Is this true? That should be easy enough to assess with enough data. (With 100 times as much data, we could do a Gauquelin-like professional and character trait study that could be compared against Gauquelin's findings for the planets near angles. But we don't have data like that.)
I have nearly 1,000 well-timed public figure charts well-distributed by Sun-sign and other features. I have identified which of these has any planet within 1° of conjunction, opposition, or square of the ecliptical half-sum of Midheaven and Ascendant. I regard all of these as direct midpoint contacts to A/M since I find no difference in strengths between squares and conjunctions to the half-sum; but, in any case, these four points are all midpoints between the horizon and the meridian, either of Asc/MC, MC/Dsc, Dsc/IC, or IC/Asc. Even these numbers are small. I currently have 930 examples in the data pool, of which 777 have no planets within a degree of one of these midpoints. This leaves 153 examples, or 16% of the total. (We'd expect 22%, so this is already interesting: This number is unusually low, so my 930 public (mostly eminent) examples has a lot fewer contacts with these points than the population overall.
On the next post, I'll list everyone in the data pool that has each planet in partile contact to A/M. I suggest they be assessed against the assertion that these planets should act much as they would if exactly on an angle. As a further resource, though, and out of fairness to Cosmobiology's teachings, here are Ebertin's specific interpretations for each planet on A/M:
Sun: The relationship between body and soul, a person's attitude to other persons. The man in his sphere of life and activity. - Going together, living together, attitude to the male principle in general.
Moon: One's personal attitude to life as governed by feeling, the seeking of a cordial understanding with others, a person guided primarily by instinct. - Attitude to the female principle in general. Association with the female sex.
Mercury: Exchange of thoughts, the use of one's critical faculties. - A frank discussion between people, cooperation in the scientific or commercial sphere.
Venus: A sense of beauty, the desire to have harmony and beauty in one's surroundings, art-interests. - Personal attachment.
Mars: The individual in action, a positive attitude towards one's family and one's colleagues. - Successful team-work.
Jupiter: The optimist, the desire for gaiety and social entertainment within the family-circle. The ability to share joy and merriment together with others, the ability to make oneself popular with other people. - Joy and success.
Saturn: The inhibited type, feelings of inferiority, moods of depression. - Superstition, mourning, or bereavement.
Uranus: An excitable person, emotionalism, quick determination. - Sudden experiences, excitement or upsets, a spoiling of one's plans.
Neptune: Feeling ill at ease in one's circle, emotional suffering, the necessity to hide one's true nature buy feigning, simulating, or pretending. - The misfortune to be surrounded by deceitful or bad people, the experiencing of disappointments.
Pluto: An unusual person in unusual surroundings, a fascinating personality. - The power to exerciwse a strong influence upon the people in one's environment.