sorry, got cut off and tried to edit it but messed it up, hence this additional posting.

please just ignore this extra posting the earlier one contains all i wanted to say

and aglaya... i had to re-word my posting about 3 times in the struggle to say it and even the finished version didn't seem quite how i wanted it

Obviously, handn has got the point - it is the modern authors who usually regard such distances as aspects whilst traditional literature teaches us to always look for major aspects. Tghis is probably what confused youu!

Okay, so it's not that they are "not aspects," but rather that they are not "Ptolemaic aspects" or "perfecting aspects." That is different from not being an aspect at all, which I remember some people saying, and that was very confusing wording to me.

Though really I still don't see any reason why a quincunx could not be a perfecting aspect, in certain situations as I described before. It would just require a lot of support I think.

IMO your questions etc on this are stemming from the rubbing together of the older philosophy of the aspects with the later developed philosophy/philosophies. IMO they're not one wrong/one right but it is a fact that the older philosophy is rarely taught in modern texts and in this thread you're getting mostly the older philosophy which has to be understood on its own terms (like any philosophy does), rather than from the vantage point of the newer philosophy/ies. IMO that's why things are seeming odd/contradictory to you in this discussion.

Regards

H.

No, I honestly thought people were saying that a quincunx was not an aspect because that is actually verbatim what was said. And I did not understand that. So I wanted to know what that meant, and now I know: not a Ptolemaic aspect, not a perfecting aspect. I read somewhere for instance that Ivy Goldstein-Jacobson or someone like that asserted that an Aries/Virgo quincunx was not actually inconjunct. I don't really understand the reasoning, or what that means, but apparently for some odd reason it isn't inconjunct in her view (or whoever the astrologer was, I don't remember now). I though this, "quincunx is not an aspect," might be a similar issue, one that is beyond the means of my apparent tiny brain's ability to understand.

It was said, verbatim, that a quincunx is not an aspect:

By Deb:

The word 'inconjunct' expresses the fact that there is no aspectual joining

and Tanit:

I agree with some of the other statements - the fact that there is no aspect

and you:

The difference is that in the older astrology texts the quincunx/inconjunct isn't an aspect. It can't be.

I see now that you said "in the older astrology texts" and it makes more sense to me now what you were saying, but for one thing, that was not clarified by anyone else, and for another thing, what caught my eye originally was the "it can't be." This all added up to my confusion about why a quincunx cannot be, or isn't, an aspect. I think actually especially it was the "it can't be" that threw me, because it reminded me of the example above of an astrologer claiming that an Aries/Virgo quincunx cannot be inconjunct. Why can't it? Beats me, because apparently there is something technical going on there that I don't understand. I thought it was the case here as well. BUT IMcurrentO it is not.

Hi Gabby

The principle in horary is that only the Ptolemaic aspects are traditionally considered powerful enough to bring 'adhesion' or to describe a point of contact between the querent and the quesited. Traditionally, there really was no recognition of an aspect existing at the relationship of the inconjunct, and that's why planets which are five signs apart are said to be 'inconjunct' to each other - because they are not able to connect to each other by aspect.

This passage is from my article at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspects.html

Inconjunct (literally unconnected) was the name applied to planets placed 150? apart. Unable to inscribe a polygon (enclosed shape) within the wheel of the zodiac, the term itself suggests a state of natural aversion. Such a relationship was considered unfortunate or 'alien' and the planets placed at this geometrical relationship were said to turn away from each other, indicating an almost malevolent lack of sympathy. In classical literature the term ablepton meaning 'not seen' or 'blind' is frequently encountered, as is asyndeton meaning 'unconnected', aversum 'turned away from', and alienum 'unfamiliar'

You wrote:

I read somewhere for instance that Ivy Goldstein-Jacobson or someone like that asserted that an Aries/Virgo quincunx was not actually inconjunct. I don't really understand the reasoning, or what that means

I don't know what that means either; but its hard to check without a reference to what she did say and where she said it. All I can say is that most horary practitioners and teachers would tell you to use only the major Ptolemaic aspects in horary, at least whilst you are learning the system. That doesn't mean to forget what you already know, but be prepared to approach horary with a different perspective. I hope that's the kind of response you were looking for - I'm getting a little confused too

Best wishes
Deb

I read somewhere for instance that Ivy Goldstein-Jacobson or someone like that asserted that an Aries/Virgo quincunx was not actually inconjunct. I don't really understand the reasoning, or what that means

I don't know what that means either; but its hard to check without a reference to what she did say and where she said it.

In her pink "Simplified Horary Astrology" book, Ivy says on pg. 25:

The minor aspects are usable mainly for confirmation of what is shown by the major aspects and include the semisextile, semisquare, sesquare, and quincunx.

The quincunx...will force the querent to support another or pay off another's creditors or put up bail for him.

I originally thought that last part of what she said (quincunx forces querent to support another, etc.) must be referring to the specific chart she had mentioned earlier as an example of having a quincunx, but on closer inspection, that wouldn't make sense because that specific chart topic was "Where is my purse?", so I guess she meant it as a general rule, which seems a little far out IMO.

Hello, all

Aries - Virgo aversion is mitigated by their being in antiscia relationship with each other so a certain degree of mutual influence does exist, unlike between Aries and Taurus, for instance.
This might be of help:

Zoidia corresponding in course - Antiscia

The next relationship we meet is one, which many who deal with horary questions, are familiar with. That is zoidia that are "Corresponding in Course" or "Of Equal Power". In other words these are signs that are equidistant from the solstice points 0? Cancer and 0? Capricorn, and relate to the length of time during which a degree (or moira ) of the zodiac is above or below the horizon. This is of course relating to antiscia. Antiscia are points or degrees symmetrical to the solstice points. In the Northern hemisphere 0? Cancer is above the horizon for the greatest amount of time each day while 0? Capricorn is above the horizon the least amount of time. This reverses in the Southern hemisphere. In either hemisphere 1? Gemini and 29? Cancer are 29? from 0? Cancer just as 29?Gemini and 1? Cancer are both 1? from 0? Cancer. They have corresponding inverse degrees and so have equal light as they spend the same amount of time above (or below) the horizon. The signs that have equal light are Gemini and Cancer (in aversion), Taurus and Leo, Aries and Virgo (in aversion), Pisces and Libra (in aversion), Aquarius and Scorpio, Capricorn and Sagittarius (in aversion).

The Living Signs Part 3, by Steven Birchfield

Greetings,
Goran

Hi, gabkins!

Deb and handn have already given the answers to the questions you asked in your reply to my last post so, I will just briefly add...

gabkins wrote:But actually, I think if there were a quincunx applying with strong mutual reception, and if the moon were also looking positive, then the quincunx *could* potentially indicate a favorable outcome, though it wouldn't come easily (just like with squares or oppositions).

I second this opinion because it goes against some general rules most of which Deb has already mentioned - in order to conclude that the main participants are capable of establishing any kind of contact, according to traditional rules, we first need to see their significators applying to each other (or, we need a third planet to bring them together by collecting or translating their light). And, inconjunction is a position from which the planets cannot cast a ptolemaic aspect onto each other meaning that a quincinx is not a (major) aspect. Of course, as long as we call this placement "aspect" we can say that the planets are actually applying into it but here the words only cause confusion because that is not the kind of application that we need. Quite the contrary- the fact that the planets are applying to each other into a quincunx only means that they cannot establish a contact- they're missing each other. Reception helps in determining the quality of the contact between the planets (and, consequently, between the Querent and the Quesited) but we first need to have an aspect . And that aspect needs to be either a conjunction, a sextile, an opposition,a square or a trine (or COL or TOL).
So, unless this "positive" Moon that you're mentioning means that the Moon is actually translating the light from one planet onto the other, we don't really have a "promising" situation. Without an example it is hard to say what exactly a chart with inconjunct significators that are in reception could mean and what a strong Moon in such a chart could be saying but whatever it may be, the quincunx alone is saying a lot- the planets are not brought into a contact.

And, just a short comment on this:

No, I honestly thought people were saying that a quincunx was not an aspect because that is actually verbatim what was said. And I did not understand that. So I wanted to know what that meant, and now I know: not a Ptolemaic aspect, not a perfecting aspect.

and this

Okay, so it's not that they are "not aspects," but rather that they are not "Ptolemaic aspects" or "perfecting aspects."

To avoid confusion- ptolemaic aspects are not necessarily "perfecting aspects". Not every time when the planets are in a major aspect will the outcome be positive. Some aspects are hard and need very strong reception to be be overcome. Sometimes they announce stressful situations, separations, abandonment, bad communication, attacks etc. The activity promised by major aspects is not always the kind of activity that the Querent is hoping for. But it is an activity. Or a promise for one.

handn wrote:and aglaya... i had to re-word my posting about 3 times in the struggle to say it and even the finished version didn't seem quite how i wanted it Smile

But I'd say that you've pinpointed the problem - it's the use of the word "aspect" in different types of literature that is obviously causing this whole confusion. Modern authors call it an aspect and, as Deb has already said, the word inconjunct actually means unconnected. So, if it's quincinx than it's an aspect and if it's inconjunction than it is the lack of one. It can sound very confusing. I think I understand the whole question better now.

Modern authors usually describe quincunx as an aspect of adjustment (more or less) and I'm pretty sure that, when we said that we did pay attention to it but did not see any potential in it, what gabkins had in mind was the "adjustable" quality of this aspect which she probably did not think should be neglected. Yet, what I (and probably the rest of us) basically had in mind was that it is worth noticing that the planets are in positions from which they cannot communicate with each other (as it describes the relationship and possibly explains some of the causes of the problem) rather than that they are in a position that calls for much dedication and adjustment in order for the obstacles to be overcome. That we don't find in traditional literature, of course!

gabkins wrote:No, I honestly thought people were saying that a quincunx was not an aspect because that is actually verbatim what was said. And I did not understand that. So I wanted to know what that meant, and now I know: not a Ptolemaic aspect, not a perfecting aspect....

So if I said that a conjunction isn't an aspect either, and that two planets in the same Sign can't be in aspect with one another, would it be clear why I was saying that, or would you just think I've been possessed by the light of the silvery Moon?

Regards

H.

Deb, you said:

I don't know what that means either; but its hard to check without a reference to what she did say and where she said it.

Yeah, and I don't even know for sure if it was Goldstein-Jacobson. It was just something I read in passing on a website somewhere. I didn't expect anyone to necessarily have an explanation, just using it as an example of how/why I didn't understand this other issue. Though glad that Goran is able to explain!

Carol, I've read before that same explanation of the quincunx, that it's about supporting another party... and I feel the same way, seems a little far out to me!

Goran, you said:

Aries - Virgo aversion is mitigated by their being in antiscia relationship with each other so a certain degree of mutual influence does exist, unlike between Aries and Taurus, for instance.

Thank you so much! That makes total sense. Planets in this signs are not inconjunct necessarily because they can be connected by antiscia. I totally understand that. But, just to make sure, does that make a quincunx aspect between planets in these signs less inconjunct if they are not in each other's antiscia? For instance, Jupiter in 3 Aries and Mercury in 3 Virgo?

Aglaya, you said

So, if it's quincinx than it's an aspect and if it's inconjunction than it is the lack of one. It can sound very confusing. I think I understand the whole question better now.

Yes, I guess I had seen people use the two words interchangably (or thought that I had... perhaps modern or natal astrologers do that, I don't know) and that made me think they meant the same thing. I am also less confused now about the whole situation.

Also, for a second I was going to argue with you about quincunx and lack of "contact" because the job I was trying to get did contact me to tell me why they weren't hiring me... but then I remembered moon does make an opposition to the job sig, so. I guess that is the contact. NM. Well, I will still be open to learning from quincunx in my charts, to see what is possible. I'm wily that way! lol.

Handn, you said:

So if I said that a conjunction isn't an aspect either, and that two planets in the same Sign can't be in aspect with one another, would it be clear why I was saying that, or would you just think I've been possessed by the light of the silvery Moon?

I would not think you were possessed, as I'm sure you know what you're talking about, but no, I don't understand what you mean when you say that. ???

Gabby - Kepler was the one who introduced minor aspects. I'm not sure if that has been mentioned yet. Lilly was familiar with the minor aspects when he wrote Christian Astrology, but he still has a section in book I about "signs not beholding one another." Apparently he dabbled with minor aspects, but it took a while for astrologers to start using them regularly.

Here's an article on Kepler:
http://skyscript.co.uk/kepler.html

Most of us are strictly traditional, so we don't use minor aspects, we just say that the planets do not aspect. The "wall" idea I mentioned is a way of saying that the light transmitted by the planets cannot get through, so there is not a proper aspect. They don't "see" one another because of the wall.

I think you might enjoy Robert Hand's "Reception" video on YouTube. He mentions how conjunctions are not an actual aspect and also the disjunction. I found it helpful when I first started trying to process these ideas.

It's nice to get both worlds - old and new thinking.