Shouldn't each planet have its own AS, MC, DE, IC?

Let's say Mercury:
- Rises at MeR;
- Culminates at MeC;
- Sets at MeS;
- Anti-culminates at MeA.

Maybe, in a Natal Chart, If a person has Mercury aspect MeR, that means his/her constitution, personality, or private persona will have mercurial qualities. If a person has Mercury aspect MeC, that means his/her career, reputation, or public persona will have mercurial qualities. So on and so forth.

Does it make sense?


Also, we can add perihelion and aphelion in that play... If Mercury is in perihelion as well, it is more "favorable"; if in aphelion, more "unfavorable".

We can add planet nodes, etc.

It's not entirely clear to me what you mean. Usually a planet will rise fairly close to the time when its ecliptical degree is rising (e.g., Mercury at 10 Sagittarius will rise around the same time as 10 Sagittarius, etc.), although there are exceptions when planets have a lot of latitude and/or the location is far north (or south). Perhaps you could give an example to illustrate your idea more clearly?

sounds like what durahan is asking is about in mundo, or mundane aspects...

see video for more insight on this..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaoIxIyF3ao&t=10s

No, so-called mundane aspects (invented by Placidus; I teach them as part of my Primary Directions course) do not involve a planet having its own ascendant which it can then aspect or not. They are based on proportions of a planet's semi-arc and can exist between two planets or between a planet and an angle (in the ordinary sense). To give the most basic example, a culminating planet will by definition form a mundane square with the ascendant (and descendant).

well first you weren't clear and now you appear to be very clear, lol...

perhaps the language durahan has used at the beginning now makes sense to you? i will wait to hear from durahan.. thanks..

My bad I didn't make myself clear.

I am going to show the Rise, Culm, Set, and IC of today for some of the planets (location Rio de Janeiro):

Sun Rise: 05:24:27
Sun Culm: 12:02:39
Sun Set: 18:40:52
Sun IC: 00:03:01 (tomorrow)

Moon Rise: 11:36:31
Moon Culm: 17:28:47
Moon Set: 23:21:02
Moon IC: 05:58:38 (tomorrow)

Mercury Rise: 03:43:30
Mercury Culm: 10:24:05
Mercury Set: 17:04:51
Mercury IC: 22:24:38

You see, what if someone was born today in Rio de Janeiro at 03:43:30 (Mercury Rise), could it mean that this person have a "Mercury Ascendant"? Which would mean, therefore, that this person will have a mercurial constitution, personality, a mercurial private persona, or what have you.

And what if someone was born today in Rio de Janeiro at 10:24:04 (Mercury Culmination), could it mean that this person have a "Mercury MC" ? Which would mean, therefore, that this person will have a mercurial career, reputation, a mercurial public persona, or what have you.

Could that rationale of looking into each planet rise, culm, set, and anti-culm make sense?

Of couse, people don't need to be born at exactly the time of the Rise, Culm, Set, or IC of one of the planets, because they only need to aspect one of those positions.

durahan

it's still confusing what you're getting at in your 938pm post, but if the people are born at the times you gave in your 930pm post, it means those planets are ''angular'' - on an angle - specifically the ascendant or midheaven in the 2 examples you've shared with mercury rising and culminating.. and it seems clear to me now that you are not asking about mundane aspects..

james_m wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:40 pm durahan

it's still confusing what you're getting at in your 938pm post, but if the people are born at the times you gave in your 930pm post, it means those planets are ''angular'' - on an angle - specifically the ascendant or midheaven in the 2 examples you've shared with mercury rising and culminating.. and it seems clear to me now that you are not asking about mundane aspects..

I understand that Mercury rising and culminating (as in my exemple) are on an angle to the ascendant or midheaven because they are all in the ecliptic.

I understand that they are all related, that all angles would be related, but when we talk ascendant or midheaven, we are relating all these planets through the Sun, not through themselves.

As I understand, if I look at Mercury in the MC, I am looking at Mercury at the highest point the Sun could reach at that time. (I guess I am probably simplifying a lot, or simply wrong, but it is as I understand it).

What if I look at Mercury at the highest point Mercury could reach at that time ("Mercury MC")?

Now I will probably mix two systems together, but I was thinking something like this with this topic:

Imagine I convert Sun rises time = 0º and Sun rises time of the next day = 360º. And then, convert Mercury rising time of that day, Mercury culminating time of that day, etc., in relation to the Sun risings, and, after that, do that to all the planets.

Now let's say Mercury rising time = MeRº in relation to the Sun rising (always in relation to the Sun rising of the day, because the Sun rising starts the day: Sun rising = 0º).

If a person is born at MeRº, that person is conjunct Mercury rising. If a person is born at 180º MeRº, that person is opposition Mercury rising. So on and so forth.

If a person is born betweem Sun rising (0º) and Mercury rising (MeRº), then that person is born at the midpoint of the Sun and Mercury risings.

Here I am not only talking about the Sun MC, but talking about the MC of each one of the planets. I am also talking about the significations that will emerge from all that.

If a person is born with Mercury at the (Sun) MC (Sun culminating time), we know the signification of that. But what if that person is born with Mercury at the "Mercury MC" (Mercury culminating time)? What if that person is born with Mercury squaring "Jupiter AS" (Jupiter rising time) and "Saturn MC" (Saturn culminating time)?


You said you are confused, but I am the one probably confusing, but I still don't know how I am doing it. I guess something is missing.

hi durahan

how much do you know about astrology? is english your main language? i am still confused.. thanks for trying to explain though..

Durahan wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2024 2:50 am As I understand, if I look at Mercury in the MC, I am looking at Mercury at the highest point the Sun could reach at that time. (I guess I am probably simplifying a lot, or simply wrong, but it is as I understand it).

Your description is a little wrong, but I think I understand what you're after. Planets other than the Sun aren't usually exactly on the ecliptic, which means there is a difference between the time when the body of Mercury is on the midheaven (culminating) and the time when its projected ecliptical position is. Usually this is just a matter of minutes of clock time, though, and certainly not enough for there to be a major/standard aspect angle between the two culminating points.

With some planets (the Moon and Venus, especially), and at some locations and some parts of the zodiac, you can get a bigger difference (but still not amounting to a major aspect angle). I recall the case of a Scandinavian client of mine whose Moon had a projected ecliptical position exactly 30 degrees above the horizon (that is, the Moon's ecliptical degree was on the 12th equal house cusp), but who was in fact born exactly at moonrise (the Moon had 0 degrees altitude). She had extremely lunar traits. So yes, I always look at the actual bodies of the planets to determine angularity.

james_m wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2024 4:18 am hi durahan

how much do you know about astrology? is english your main language? i am still confused.. thanks for trying to explain though..

I don't know much and english is not my main language. However, I think english has not been the problem. I guess the problem is that I have been speaking in variables and "not in english".

Martin Gansten wrote: Your description is a little wrong, but I think I understand what you're after. Planets other than the Sun aren't usually exactly on the ecliptic, which means there is a difference between the time when the body of Mercury is on the midheaven (culminating) and the time when its projected ecliptical position is. Usually this is just a matter of minutes of clock time, though, and certainly not enough for there to be a major/standard aspect angle between the two culminating points.

With some planets (the Moon and Venus, especially), and at some locations and some parts of the zodiac, you can get a bigger difference (but still not amounting to a major aspect angle). I recall the case of a Scandinavian client of mine whose Moon had a projected ecliptical position exactly 30 degrees above the horizon (that is, the Moon's ecliptical degree was on the 12th equal house cusp), but who was in fact born exactly at moonrise (the Moon had 0 degrees altitude). She had extremely lunar traits. So yes, I always look at the actual bodies of the planets to determine angularity.

I know you have been saying that the planets ecliptical path are close to the Sun, and I know that.

What I don't understand is why this is just a matter of minutes for most of the planets.

I mean, I can understand that as well, and I thought that would be the case.

However, when I see the difference between the planets rising times compared to the Sun's, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Instead of speaking in variables, I will convert time to angle to be more precise in what I am saying.

Sun Rising time in Rio de Janeiro at 17 Jan 2024: 05:24:27
Sun Rising time in Rio de Janeiro at 18 Jan 2024: 05:25:10

Now I will establish that each day starts at Sun Rising time and ends at Sun Rising time of the next time. Then, I will convert that to 0º and 360º.

Sun Rising time in Rio de Janeiro at 17 Jan 2024: 0º
Sun Rising time in Rio de Janeiro at 18 Jan 2024: 360º
(In that case, 1 day period = 1,440.717 minutes)

With this in mind, now I will convert Mercury and Sun Culminating time to degrees as well.

Mercury Culm: 10:24:05
Sun Culm: 12:02:39

Mercury Culm - Sun Rise = 299.633 minutes
Sun Culm - Sun Rise = 398.2 minutes

1 day period (in this specific day) = 1,440.717 minutes = 360º .
Mercury Culm = 299.633 minutes = 74.87º.
Sun Culm = 398.2 minutes = 99.50º.

Comparing Sun and Mercury Culm (or Sun and Mercury Rising, etc.) is not the best example, because Mercury can only be at maximum 28º from the Sun (something like that). Still, we can compare Mercury Culm with Sun Rise (as shown, they would be 74.87º apart), and maybe in a different day and location they could get to a 90º (square) aspect. Maybe if we compare Mercury Setting and Sun Rising we could get a 180º (opposition) aspect one specific day. The idea is that we can compare the Rise, Culm, Set and Anti-Culm among all the planets and see if they are aspecting each other.

I will do more calculations:

Sun Set: 18:40:52
Sun Set - Sun Rise = 796.417 minutes
Sun Set = 199.00º
(Sun Set - Sun Culm = 99.5º)

Venus Set: 16:15:39
Venus Set - Sun Rise = 651.2 minutes
Venus Set = 162.72º

Ok, now I can show my point:

Venus Set (162.72º) - Mercury Culm (74.87º) = 87.85º.

Which means Venus Set squares Mercury Culm.

Wouldn't be important/significant to know that someone was born in a day that Venus Set time squares Mercury Culm time? That person could have been born in a day that this would not have happenned, but was born in a day that this happenned.

Of course, if Venus Set time always kinda squares Mercury Culm time, then that information would be useless (unless they are squaring exactly). And I guess that is your point: whatever the latitude and the season, a pattern will kinda of emerge, which would make it everything pointless (unless we take into consideration an exact aspect).