James,

Haha, I meant whole sign houses, of course.

Michael Sternbach wrote: However, in the domicile scheme, there is one classical "aspect" not included: the conjunction. What we have instead are two celestial bodies 30? from one another (the Sun and the Moon), each casting aspects only to one side, into their respective hemispheres of the zodiac. Whereas looking at a planet, we are dealing with a singular body projecting its rays both forward and backward on the zodiac simultaneously. So what I propose for our purposes here is to set the Sun and the Moon in conjunction with each other.

Can you explain why you felt the need to do this - what is the goal? Was there a dilemma/problem/use case etc. that was not already catered for that the only alternative was to adjust this rulership scheme? It may help me better understand what you're hoping to achieve here.
For example I'm still fully opaque on what the reasons were for joining the sun and moon even though I read and re-read your post. Why are we doing this for in the first place? I'm not sure what problem existed that, when we join the sun and moon as though they were conjunct, is then solved.

I wonder if the idea of planets casting rays backwards and forwards is red herring here. I personally find it easier to think of planets applying to planets and casting aspects that way (separating this idea from the idea of the phase of a planet in relation to another, ie, whether sinister or dexter). I'm not sure how the concept of hurling rays may fit into that though as it may contradict my simple approach here.

Either way I'm not sure why we would set the luminaries in conjunction with another at all. The conjunction wasn't really an aspect at all - they're in the same place.

Paralleling this, any planet can be diurnal as well nocturnal.

What have we added to make it so that any planet can be diurnal/nocturnal? Can you explain what you mean by that? Do you mean it in relation to sect? Or each planet having a nocturnal/diurnal sign? If the latter, then really what you mean to say isn't so much that any planet can be diurnal or nocturnal but instead that the terms nocturnal/diurnal become meaningless.

Therefore, the conjunction is of a Soli-Lunar nature, the semi-sextile is Mercurial, the sextile is Venusian, the square Martian, the trine Jovian, the opposition Saturnine. I think this describes the particular character of each of these aspects quite well!

Well obviously the only thing we've added here is Mercury being the semi-sextile - but I'm not sure why we need to conjoin the Sun and Moon for that to happen. Nor why we think the semi-sextile is of the nature of Mercury.
Even without forcing a conjunction upon the luminaries, Mercury will still be semi-sextile its luminary.

Note that since we have blended the Luminaries with each other, we have created a gap on either side, as far as assignable planets are concerned. Maybe this is yet another rationale why the quincunx isn't considered an aspect, traditionally speaking.

Can you explain why we have a gap that wasn't there before? Sure we always had a quincunx (saturn for each luminary)? Can you explain whether you're acknowledging the inconjunctions here or not? Because you seem to acknowledge an inconjunction (semi-sextile) for Mercury?

I realise this topic is a few weeks old now, but I'm only just reading through it.

muchacho - now you are talking houses, lol... you sure know how to talk about everything except aspects!!

paul - i hadn't been paying attention to what you address in your lastest post to michael, but it's interesting that the system of aspects according to the view given is that the sun and moon are unable to see each other as they are 30 degrees apart in this same system. i am not sure if anything is to be made of that observation, but it is interesting either way..

james_m wrote:here is a quote regarding placidus use of certain aspects.. it is interesting how some astrologers are strong supporters of his house system or his manner of doing primary directions, but don't necessarily abide by his concept on aspects.

Well obviously placidus houses predates Placido himself. In fact many believed Ptolemy to have used what we call Placidus houses and it's probably for this reason that Placido used them - after all he needed nothing but Ptolemy and reason. As far as I understand it, Placido's method of primary directions is again an attempt to make sense of Ptolemy.

So it's really it's no surprise that many would find favour with some of Placido's approaches, as he is attempting to make sense of Ptolemy. But I'm not sure why we ought to be surprised that someone would find something like Placidus house cusps useful - which measure an astronomical phenomena, namely the time it takes for a body like the sun to rise and set and divisions thereof - but not find other things useful as he did, such as his non-Ptolemaic aspects.

paul,

thanks for reminding me of the history.. as i have been told both placidus and morin thought they were doing what ptolemy laid out with the 2 different house systems they used.. that's a good point for astrologers today to reflect on when trying to embrace approaches from the past..

maybe i ought not to be surprised that certain approaches to astrology will be adopted and not others.. even if some would consider placidus a traditional astrologer, i suppose the fact he used some of keplers aspects would make him a cutting edge astrologer of the day and too modern for the die hards who want to practice only what ptolemy laid down or whatever!

one thing i'm fairly certain of is if an astrologer doesn't explore the use of non ptolemic aspects, they aren't in a very strong position to comment on their validity or usefulness either however they want to categorize their place in history..

james_m wrote: maybe i ought not to be surprised that certain approaches to astrology will be adopted and not others.. even if some would consider placidus a traditional astrologer, i suppose the fact he used some of keplers aspects would make him a cutting edge astrologer of the day and too modern for the die hards who want to practice only what ptolemy laid down or whatever!

Right, I think the thing is to separate the logic/philosphy underlying something (like placidus cusps) which really has nothing to do with a person who also found that useful, even if that something comes to be named after that astrologer.

one thing i'm fairly certain of is if an astrologer doesn't explore the use of non ptolemic aspects, they aren't in a very strong position to comment on their validity or usefulness either however they want to categorize their place in history..

That's probably true enough. Personally I don't get much out of most minor aspects, the only ones I notice are clearly doing something are the quincunx and to a lesser extent the semi-sextile.

Paul wrote:

For example I'm still fully opaque on what the reasons were for joining the sun and moon even though I read and re-read your post. Why are we doing this for in the first place? I'm not sure what problem existed that, when we join the sun and moon as though they were conjunct, is then solved.

I started out with the premise that virtually all of astrology's basics are encrypted in the domicile scheme. Therefore, I was looking for a sophisticated way to link this scheme...
Source: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspects.html

...with this one ? in a logical manner that would be consistent with what is known about aspects.
Source: http://houseofdaedalus.blogspot.ch/2012 ... nd_25.html

Either way I'm not sure why we would set the luminaries in conjunction with another at all. The conjunction wasn't really an aspect at all - they're in the same place.

Right, the Conjunction by the ancients' definition is not really an aspect, that's why I put the word in quotation marks. But it's frequently treated as one of the main aspects, nonetheless. I would maintain that it actually is an aspect, measuring 0? or 360?, or the circle divided by the number one. The domicile scheme, taken at face value, eliminates not only the Conjunction but also the Opposition. These two are actually the two sides of the same coin, as we shall see...

Comparing the aspect circle with the domicile scheme, we find that, just like the former has a waxing and a waning half, the latter is divided into a Solar hemisphere or hairesis on the left, a Lunar hairesis on the right. The only way to get the opposition out of the domicile scheme is by crossing over the central line into the other Luminary's hemisphere (from Leo-Sun to Aquarius-Saturn, and from Cancer-Moon to Capricorn-Saturn). But you would end up with both the opposition and the quincunx representing the same planetary energy (Saturn) - even though in astrology these two aspects are not considered to have quite the same effect.

Looking at the aspects from yet another angle (double pun unintended), any celestial body casts a dexter as well as a sinister Sextile, a dexter as well as a sinister Square etc., much in the way can see in the domicile scheme aspects to both sides. But there is only one Opposition in reality! Interestingly, with this aspect, whether it is waxing or waning depends on whether it is applying or separating; reversed for the Conjunction! Just keep this in the back of your mind for the time being.

I wonder if the idea of planets casting rays backwards and forwards is red herring here. I personally find it easier to think of planets applying to planets and casting aspects that way (separating this idea from the idea of the phase of a planet in relation to another, ie, whether sinister or dexter). I'm not sure how the concept of hurling rays may fit into that though as it may contradict my simple approach here.

Why ?red herring?? I'm not sure if I follow your argumentation here...

It is generally believed that in an aspect, the slower planet becomes the ?emitter?, analogous to the Sun, the faster one the ?receiver?, analogous to the Moon. That's why we can differentiate between a waxing and a waning phase in the aspect cycle. Translated to my scheme, the faster planet will be either in the ?Solar? or in the ?Lunar? hemisphere of the slower planet's wheel of aspects.

On the other hand, according to ancient lore, a planet ?overpowers? another (regardless of their relative velocities) simply by being in a dexter aspect to it. The traditional rationale (only good for the Square, really) goes something like this: ?If the dominated planet were at the ASC, and the dominating planet at the Nonagesimal, the latter would be elevated over the former.? My scheme is offering an alternative explanation: The planet on the right will have the one on the left in the Solar hemisphere of its own wheel of aspects, logically it will act on it as the Sun would on the Moon.

You are of course right with your remark that the dominated planet is hurling its rays back to the other at the same time.

All this should demonstrate clearly that aspects are no one-way streets.

Michael Sternbach wrote:

So what I propose for our purposes here is to set the Sun and the Moon in conjunction with each other. Paralleling this, any planet can be diurnal as well nocturnal.

Paul replied:

What have we added to make it so that any planet can be diurnal/nocturnal? Can you explain what you mean by that? Do you mean it in relation to sect? Or each planet having a nocturnal/diurnal sign? If the latter, then really what you mean to say isn't so much that any planet can be diurnal or nocturnal but instead that the terms nocturnal/diurnal become meaningless.

True, I wasn't very explicit on this ? I trusted that if somebody would be interested, they would ask. I already demonstrated that a planet can take on the role of the Sun and of the Moon in an aspect. The concept of a planet having a diurnal as well as a nocturnal domicile reflects their inherent double nature on yet another level.

Well obviously the only thing we've added here is Mercury being the semi-sextile - but I'm not sure why we need to conjoin the Sun and Moon for that to happen. Nor why we think the semi-sextile is of the nature of Mercury.
Even without forcing a conjunction upon the luminaries, Mercury will still be semi-sextile its luminary.

Right, we can deduce the nature of most 30? aspects from the domicile scheme alone. In my perception, the Semi-sextile is describing a relationship between planets in which interchangeably either one or the other prevails, leading to mood swings, indecision etc. Quite reminiscent of Gemini when they are having a bad day. Mercury's ambivalence in a number of ways has been well noted already by the ancients.

Michael Sternbach wrote:

Note that since we have blended the Luminaries with each other, we have created a gap on either side, as far as assignable planets are concerned. Maybe this is yet another rationale why the quincunx isn't considered an aspect, traditionally speaking.

Paul replied:

Can you explain why we have a gap that wasn't there before? Sure we always had a quincunx (saturn for each luminary)? Can you explain whether you're acknowledging the inconjunctions here or not? Because you seem to acknowledge an inconjunction (semi-sextile) for Mercury?

A gap is the inevitable result of contracting the Sun and the Moon as well as the two Saturn positions into one so that we would arrive at the Conjunction and the Opposition.

The Quincunx has some similarity with the Semi-sextile in its known effects; it is also connecting signs of different gender and quality; and it's 30? away from the Opposition just like the Semi-sextile is 30? from the Conjunction. All this made me assume it to be of Mercurial nature, too, for awhile. But in the meantime I came to regard it as partaking in both the nature of Mercury and of Saturn.

I realise this topic is a few weeks old now, but I'm only just reading through it.

No problem, Paul. What would I do without your critical mind?

Thanks for the reply Michael, a lot to take in, so I may be missing or misunderstanding some of your points here!

Therefore, I was looking for a sophisticated way to link this scheme...[aspect scheme]
...with this one [domicile scheme] ? in a logical manner that would be consistent with what is known about aspects.

(insertions mine to describe images)

But doesn't it already? At least for Ptolemaic aspects. The ordering of the domicile scheme is based on the planetary orbits, and these are in turn linked with trines/sextiles being linked to relationships by benefics and squares/oppositions being linked to malefics. What are we missing? The conjunction and the inconjuncts - well the conjunctions are not aspects they are a joining by body - when we use the sun analogy for this we may run into a problem of combustion - and the inconjuncts are just that - anti-aspects, they do not connect. So the scheme already describes its relationship to aspects as they're classically used.

So what I was trying to figure out is if the 'problem' that needs addressing is in shoe-horning in the inconjunct modern aspects, or make sense of the conjunction, or both? I'm also not clear on how, ALTERING the domicile scheme by merging two domicile places (reducing our number of zodiac signs) solves this issue.

But it's frequently treated as one of the main aspects, nonetheless.

Certainly in treating it as a way of connecting two planets it's often used in the same breath or with the same catch all word as aspect, but really they're distinct things, a conjunction is a merging of two planets, it symbolises some unification that isn't present with the aspects which describe a relationship between two planets. So we have different things, conceptually/philosophically, even if, as a term used to just denote connecting two planets, we consider the conjunction as part of our aspect doctrine. If a point occupies the same position, conceptually, as another point, they do not have a relationship of regarding each other, instead the point is the other point, they are the same, they merge, one is in the place of the other and there is no observation or regarding or whatever going on between them, they symbolically become one, new, thing.

I would maintain that it actually is an aspect, measuring 0? or 360?, or the circle divided by the number one.

But it isn't an aspect - if by aspect we mean to denote some line of sight or angle between planets. To put it another way, imagine a triangle with one angle at 90 degrees, now reduce it to 45degrees, keep on reducing it to 10 degrees, 5, and so on, eventually you're at 1 degree. But if you keep reducing it you'll have a triangle with and angle of 0 degrees. Is this still a triangle?

In my view no. Now in a similar way we need an angle between two planets such that they form a line of sight, or, an aspect, between two bodies, but if the angle they form is 0 degrees can it said to be an actual angle at all? For the same reason, I say no.

The domicile scheme, taken at face value, eliminates not only the Conjunction but also the Opposition. These two are actually the two sides of the same coin, as we shall see...

No, in fact it reinforces it, what could be more opposing, than the literal concept of passing over to the other side? Surely that's exactly what the opposition is and in fact shows how the the hemispheres are not wholly separate things to be taken in isolation. They are brought together here.

Comparing the aspect circle with the domicile scheme, we find that, just like the former has a waxing and a waning half, the latter is divided into a Solar hemisphere or hairesis on the left, a Lunar hairesis on the right.

This is what I meant when I asked about whether you mean diurnal/nocturnal in terms of sect or in terms of the sun's half of the chart and the moon's half, with the division being made into solar/lunar hemisphere based on the sun's and moon's domicile rulership. Because at times i have been unclear what exactly you mean by it. Here is another example because by using the word hairesis, you are referencing the greek word used to describe planetary sect. I need to make sure we are not treating these as being similar or linked - namely that Mars has a nocturnal sign with Scorpio, for example, and a diurnal one in Aries, but this is separate from the concept of Mars being of the nocturnal sect (always). By using the word hairesis here you seem to be merging the two. I'm not sure if it's deliberate or if it's a confusion or mistake on your part - if deliberate then I'm missing some fundamental point that you're making I think. I just want to bring this up because I'm going to assume that you don't actually mean to reference the sect of the planets involved and instead are trying to refer to the lunar and solar hemispheres of the charts, as per the domicile scheme (I hope this is a fair assumption, otherwise I'm more in the dark than I thought).

The only way to get the opposition out of the domicile scheme is by crossing over the central line into the other Luminary's hemisphere (from Leo-Sun to Aquarius-Saturn, and from Cancer-Moon to Capricorn-Saturn).

Right, but isn't this exactly what you would expect? If I said what is opposite to Summer and you said Spring, would this make sense? Surely the only sensible opposition to the sun's half is to go to the moon's half. If we were still in the Sun's half would that make sense to us? Could it really be considered as opposing?

Now it's true, as you later say, that this means that the quincunx and the opposition, for the luminaries, share the same ruler but remember, the meaning of the aspects is not solely dependant upon the ruling planet involved, and, in any case, the quincunx isn't even considered within the logic of the scheme you're using. So the 'energy' of the quincunx doesn't exist to begin with according to the aspect doctrine.

By comparing the aspect scheme with the dignities scheme and noting a correlation between aspects and the dignity rulers of that place we shouldn't go too far into thinking that actually the dignity scheme is DERIVED from the aspect scheme - of course the dignity scheme is derived from orbital periods of planets (I actually wonder if hte aspect doctrine is derived from these planetary orbits though). So whilst we have correlation it doesn't mean we're tying to actually equate the two, the ancients weren't doing that, and I question why we would either. Especially if the way to do it is to completely ignore the actual dignity scheme, ignore how many signs are in the zodiac and then, form what I can see, arbitrarily combine leo and cancer into one sign, and, perhaps? also capricorn and aquarius, on the rationale that the conclusion of which happens to make our personal calculus on the matter easier to compute or justify. I hope this objection I have makes sense and you can see that it's not an invalid one.

But there is only one Opposition in reality! Interestingly, with this aspect, whether it is waxing or waning depends on whether it is applying or separating; reversed for the Conjunction! Just keep this in the back of your mind for the time being.

Right, there is only one opposition, when the points are exact, but we still have an applying and separating aspect of opposition when not exact. I am not sure what you mean then, when you compare to the conjunction and say that it is reversed. Obviously at some point when you separate enough, as we're dealing with a circle, we have to then reach the maximum distance, and you cannot separate any further than that, at which point you return. But why is this a conceptual problem which is solved by merging the sun and moon? Unless you're planning on doing away with the conjunction and opposition I'm not sure I'm following why this caveat is made? In any event the nature of the opposition and conjunction has both these concepts in mind - namely that the conjunction, representing the cojoining of the planet back to the other, is increasingly less independent and wanes. If we're going with the SUn, then actually I think your own point is weakened. Because we have the phases where the Sun separates as a new born babe and full of vigour and speed and then keep separating, losing its vigour and slowing in terms of speed the futher it goes from the sun, then eventually returns older and more matured, increasingly so, until he speeds back into the embrace of the sun who consumes the planet and eventually emerges anew like a phoenix rising from the ashes, the sun gives birth to the planet again and the process continues.

Whilst we can see this idea easily with the Moon, and recognise it as true for all planets, I am not sure why this is an issue, nor why merging the sun and Moon solves that issue.

Translated to my scheme, the faster planet will be either in the ?Solar? or in the ?Lunar? hemisphere of the slower planet's wheel of aspects.

Well according to the TRADITIONAL scheme that's the case. I thought your scheme was to merge the sun and moon? Is there something new about doing this which isn't already seen in the traditional scheme as it is? I'm not quite sure I follow you. Sometimes I think, when reading your posts, that actually what you're describing is your own sudden realisation of what the traditional scheme is, other times that there's something new being shown or developed. I am not quite sure what it is. I will just say that in this case there is nothing to differentiate here into 'your' scheme versus the traditional scheme, the traditional scheme already has everything you describe here.

We can take the analogy further if we want. Planets are themselves at their fastest when close to the sun and slowest when away from it - we notice in the domicile scheme that this truth is reflected back at us when we see the order of the planets being from swiftest (closest to the luminaries) to slowest (furthest from them). We can also imagine Saturn as the boundary, we can only go so far from the Sun (the domiciles of Saturn) before having to return to the Sun.

All this should demonstrate clearly that aspects are no one-way streets.

Right, one planet emits a line from its vision to see a planet ahead of it and so on. But my red herring comment was more in terms of seeing it with regards the phases. It's easier to conceptualise just imagining the planet separating from the sun and what its relationship is to the sun, and not what the sun's relationship is to the planet for example.

True, I wasn't very explicit on this ? I trusted that if somebody would be interested, they would ask. I already demonstrated that a planet can take on the role of the Sun and of the Moon in an aspect. The concept of a planet having a diurnal as well as a nocturnal domicile reflects their inherent double nature on yet another level.

Right but I think what you're 'reinventing' here, if I understand you right, is not really related to planets being 'role of the sun' and 'role of the moon' and simply just oriental and occidental of the sun. Or indeed waxing and waning. The traditional scheme already includes, within its framework, the idea of noting the difference between an applying and separating square, or, to reword the exact same thing, a waxing and waning one etc.

A gap is the inevitable result of contracting the Sun and the Moon as well as the two Saturn positions into one so that we would arrive at the Conjunction and the Opposition.

But in doing so, as per my point in my last message, the very tenet that you're resting this on - having a lunar part and a solar part - disappears. It is not that a planet can be diurnal or nocturnal, solar or lunar, as determined by the hemisphere it resides upon, because there is suddenly no hemisphere, suddenly no lunar and solar thing to compare with, there is just this hybrid, and we have no clear dividing line. Instead we have to divide the line, which is now among ten signs, and not twelve, either before the Luminary hybrid sign, or after it.

In fact we've completely scuppered the very scheme we said at the beginning we were making sense of - namely the dignity scheme.

This poses more problems than it solves surely?

James, re: yours Sat Jul 26, 2014 11:19 pm

Hi James,

Pardon my late reply - I was atypically busy the last few days.

I by no means deny that all kinds of divisions of the ecliptic as well as of what I call the wheel of aspects can be meaningful. But some are more fundamental than others. There are good reasons that most of astrology is oriented toward the twelve-fold division. The visible model for this was in all likelihood the relationship between the Sun and the Moon - the Moon forming usually 12 Conjunctions with the Sun during one year, thus dividing the ecliptic into 12 sectors. Notwithstanding a difference of 11 days between the Lunar and the Solar Year. Anyway, we are clearly talking about something of cyclic nature here.

Bear in mind that you need some milestones on your cycle! The 12fold division comes in handy; it seems to be very natural and intuitive. All right, in Mesopotamian astrology the Conjunction was the only "aspect." They didn't have to debate about aspects back then! On the other hand, they didn't have any astro-forums in order to do so conveniently.

So I look at minor aspects (meaning any which are not derived from 30? sectors) as something comparable to asteroids - not part of astrology's basic scheme, albeit the effects are undeniable.

the overcoming concept seems to immediately connect with this cycle too as planets in the 10th or 10th area are culminating over the 1st and hold a position of authority.. this is basic astrology symbolism as i understand it..

This has become my favourite rationalization in ancient astrology, lately! It only makes some kind of sense for the Square really - but it is being applied to any aspect, covering half of the circle! Even for the Square, the explanation would work better if the planets were actually rising and culminating, respectively, imo.

Here's my alternative take on this: The planet on the right will always have the other one in the left or Solar half of its own wheel of aspects, therefore act on it the way the Sun would act on the Moon. Vice versa for the planet standing on the left!

From your previous post:

michael - i think the trine is more dynamic then the sextile.. it covers a wider spectrum and has more reach and more synergy to express.. i am a big fan of pushing the elements onto the division of 12. i think this elemental synergy is the cause for happiness, and also perhaps a lack of conflict which might have some downside in that a person is less motivated.. usually it is offset by other factors in the chart. it is nice to have a mix of easy and hard aspects and yes - i do think of these aspects in these simplistic terms as i think it is an honest way to view them for me anyway.. so, trine is stronger and more beneficial then the sextile for all these reasons.. 120 waxing is ease of expression and joyous.. 120 waning is expansive and philosophical having taken 2/3rd of the cyclic journey, but not the whole journey!!

I think your definition of the Trine illustrates my theory that the major aspects are ruled by the planets quite nicely. For describing it, you are using words like ?synergy?, ?happiness?, ?beneficial?, ?ease of expression?, ?joyous?, ?expansive?, ?philosophical?... Great Astro Quiz: Which planet combines all these attributes?

oppositions need interaction with others to work out the dynamics of the opposition.. in charts that are clustered in a 120 bundle ( these are marc edmund jones ideas), especially eastern hemisphere emphasis - like gwbush, it seems their is no need integrating the value of another persons views in contrast to one's own.. it is much more self contained like the number 1 - going with my number emphasis in this post. oppositions demand relationship which is often conflictual as it requires integrating something different and outside your comfort zone..

I see... the number 2 is implying a counterpart.

squares are conflictual too, but the conflict may or may not get worked out in the company of others. i think they are motivating aspects, but more self contained.. i am not sure if i view one as more stressful then the other, but i think an opposition is ultimately more beneficial then a square if the planets can be harmonized with one another.. these are my subjective views here.. i don't know if anyone said this in a book!

Conflict, motivation ? these might hint at the Square's Martian nature. I think of the Square as more dynamic than the Opposition, generally speaking. If the former can be likened to a violent repartee, then the latter resembles a war of position.

The Opposition has in fact been considered potentially beneficial by some classical authors. From Deb's article that I linked above:

No such friendship is indicated by the opposition; this aspect, based upon the divisive symbolism of number two, is the epitome of separation and enmity. Only occasionally is it taken to represent agreement - usually between conflicting parties who strike up an unstable alliance.

(Emphasis mine.)

I would like to have some references for this, Deb.

This somewhat ambiguous nature of the Opposition would seem to be in accordance with my definition of it as Saturn-like. For, in a fashion, Saturn's malignancy is sometimes offset by his nature as a ?Sun in disguise?, in the ancients' view.

difference between the 30 and the 150? i think the 150 is much more stressful.. perhaps a 30 is capable of creating more stress too for lack of tension that is implied in 2 planets in this relationship.. it is always fun to fall back on the idea of signs that can or can't ''see'' one another here to explain why it is stressful, but i am more thinking like a window open fully almost ( 150) verses a window that is only very slightly open - 30.. if you think of aspects like a part of a cycle, as opposed to some dot on a page, or whatever, i think you will get how i see it for the most part..

I like your door analogy. However, to be more accurate, shouldn't we be using a revolving door?

if one thinks of planets like colours on a palette - what happens when 2 different colours collide? i think this is yet another way to think of how planets in these aspect relationships might interact with one another..

I have been thinking about something like this, too...

Michael

Hi Paul,

Please excuse my delayed reply. This topic has many aspects and therefore requires an elaborate treatment which I didn't find the time to write earlier.

What are we missing? The conjunction and the inconjuncts - well the conjunctions are not aspects they are a joining by body - when we use the sun analogy for this we may run into a problem of combustion - and the inconjuncts are just that - anti-aspects, they do not connect. So the scheme already describes its relationship to aspects as they're classically used.

Hmm... Why would we, by using the Sun analogy for the Conjunction, run into a ?combustion problem?? An exact conjunction with the Sun is actually not considered Combust but Cazimi, anyway. But frankly, I'm not sure what this has got to do with the topic in question.

As for the Inconjuncts, I doubt that many a modern astrologer would agree with seeing them as ?non-connecting? (despite their connecting two signs that don't share gender or quality). Virtually every modern astrologer uses them along with the other 30? divisions, ascribing specific orbs to them etc. But they are indeed a little different from the other aspects - much like Mercury who rules them is different from the other planets (not being composed of two Aristotelian qualities, neither diurnal nor nocturnal, male nor female, etc.).

So what I was trying to figure out is if the 'problem' that needs addressing is in shoe-horning in the inconjunct modern aspects, or make sense of the conjunction, or both?

I don't think I'm ?shoe-horning in? the Inconjuncts; at least the Semi-sextile is laughing at me in the original domicile scheme. So the question was how the closely related Quincunx would fit into the picture. But I really developed my aspect scheme over time as a way to unify a number of aspect traits in a singular model; I'm not always sure which realization proceeded another.

Certainly in treating it as a way of connecting two planets it's often used in the same breath or with the same catch all word as aspect, but really they're distinct things, a conjunction is a merging of two planets, it symbolises some unification that isn't present with the aspects which describe a relationship between two planets. So we have different things, conceptually/philosophically, even if, as a term used to just denote connecting two planets, we consider the conjunction as part of our aspect doctrine. If a point occupies the same position, conceptually, as another point, they do not have a relationship of regarding each other, instead the point is the other point, they are the same, they merge, one is in the place of the other and there is no observation or regarding or whatever going on between them, they symbolically become one, new, thing.

And what better symbol for unity and oneness would there be than the Sun? Or, more precisely, the ?alchemical? unison of the Sun and the Moon?

O.k., I see, the Conjunction is not really an aspect to begin with. But hey... the Luminaries are not really planets to begin with!

But it isn't an aspect - if by aspect we mean to denote some line of sight or angle between planets. To put it another way, imagine a triangle with one angle at 90 degrees, now reduce it to 45degrees, keep on reducing it to 10 degrees, 5, and so on, eventually you're at 1 degree. But if you keep reducing it you'll have a triangle with and angle of 0 degrees. Is this still a triangle?

Actually, it may be. Ie, if your triangle were drawn as part of a Desargues configuration in basic projective geometry. Start with a triangle that has a right angle and modify the configuration until the triangle becomes a line ? it will still be considered a triangle (albeit a ?degenerate? one). By saying this, I don't intend to be hairsplitting, I only mention it to demonstrate that from a mathematical perspective (as we ought to adopt for dealing with geometrical objects) things are not always what they seem to the uninitiated.

In my view no. Now in a similar way we need an angle between two planets such that they form a line of sight, or, an aspect, between two bodies, but if the angle they form is 0 degrees can it said to be an actual angle at all? For the same reason, I say no.

The Conjunction is not only an angle of 0? but at also an angle of 360?. In other words, just like the Opposition results from dividing the the circle by two, the Trine from a division by three etc., the Conjunction is what you get by dividing the circle by the number one. To anyone who has looked into Harmonics, this consideration will be obvious.

No, in fact it reinforces it, what could be more opposing, than the literal concept of passing over to the other side? Surely that's exactly what the opposition is and in fact shows how the the hemispheres are not wholly separate things to be taken in isolation. They are brought together here.

This is a good observation regarding aspects within[/b] the domicile scheme.

This is what I meant when I asked about whether you mean diurnal/nocturnal in terms of sect or in terms of the sun's half of the chart and the moon's half, with the division being made into solar/lunar hemisphere based on the sun's and moon's domicile rulership. Because at times i have been unclear what exactly you mean by it. Here is another example because by using the word hairesis, you are referencing the greek word used to describe planetary sect. I need to make sure we are not treating these as being similar or linked - namely that Mars has a nocturnal sign with Scorpio, for example, and a diurnal one in Aries, but this is separate from the concept of Mars being of the nocturnal sect (always). By using the word hairesis here you seem to be merging the two. I'm not sure if it's deliberate or if it's a confusion or mistake on your part - if deliberate then I'm missing some fundamental point that you're making I think. I just want to bring this up because I'm going to assume that you don't actually mean to reference the sect of the planets involved and instead are trying to refer to the lunar and solar hemispheres of the charts, as per the domicile scheme (I hope this is a fair assumption, otherwise I'm more in the dark than I thought).

I was in fact using the word hairesis in reference to the zodiacal Solar hemisphere (from Leo to Capricorn, included) and the Lunar hemisphere (from Aquarius to Cancer, included). This is how well-known historical researcher Wilhelm Knappich was using the terms - apparently incorrectly, to my surprise.

Michael wrote:

The only way to get the opposition out of the domicile scheme is by crossing over the central line into the other Luminary's hemisphere (from Leo-Sun to Aquarius-Saturn, and from Cancer-Moon to Capricorn-Saturn).

Paul replied:

Right, but isn't this exactly what you would expect? If I said what is opposite to Summer and you said Spring, would this make sense? Surely the only sensible opposition to the sun's half is to go to the moon's half. If we were still in the Sun's half would that make sense to us? Could it really be considered as opposing?

In my scheme, the exact opposition is right on the line between the two hemispheres, so it belongs to neither (or to both).

By comparing the aspect scheme with the dignities scheme and noting a correlation between aspects and the dignity rulers of that place we shouldn't go too far into thinking that actually the dignity scheme is DERIVED from the aspect scheme - of course the dignity scheme is derived from orbital periods of planets

Who said that the domicile scheme was derived from the aspects scheme? Certainly it could be that the aspects were derived from the domicile scheme. Certainly this holds true for my own interpretation. Of course, esoterically speaking, it doesn't really matter how you look at this,as both schemes are simply expressing a common principle in specific ways ? there is no cause and effect.

(I actually wonder if hte aspect doctrine is derived from these planetary orbits though).

Here you go, Paul.

Right, there is only one opposition, when the points are exact, but we still have an applying and separating aspect of opposition when not exact. I am not sure what you mean then, when you compare to the conjunction and say that it is reversed.

With most aspects, there is a waxing and a waning variant - but with the Opposition, waxing and waning hinges upon whether the opposition is in the applying or separating stage. It's reversed for the Conjunction because the waxing Conjunction is separating, the waning conjunction applying.

Paul, I'm not sure what you are asking by the next few sentences in your post (as well as by a few others). There may be some misunderstandings involved that I hopefully clarify in this post. Let me know if I leave some of your questions unanswered.

Michael wrote:

Translated to my scheme, the faster planet will be either in the ?Solar? or in the ?Lunar? hemisphere of the slower planet's wheel of aspects.

Paul replied:

Well according to the TRADITIONAL scheme that's the case. I thought your scheme was to merge the sun and moon? Is there something new about doing this which isn't already seen in the traditional scheme as it is? I'm not quite sure I follow you. Sometimes I think, when reading your posts, that actually what you're describing is your own sudden realisation of what the traditional scheme is, other times that there's something new being shown or developed. I am not quite sure what it is. I will just say that in this case there is nothing to differentiate here into 'your' scheme versus the traditional scheme, the traditional scheme already has everything you describe here.

By merging the Sun and the Moon, their respective hemispheres in the domicile scheme become the waxing and the waning halves of the wheel of aspects. It's really the only way to integrate the concept of the Solar and the Lunar hemisphere, respectively, into the aspect scheme.

What else is new in my scheme as compared to the traditional model? I can explain the concept of a planet ?overcoming? another based on their Solar/Lunar nature in a given aspect relationship rather than on a rationalization saying that if one of them were culminating, it would be elevated over the other.

Right but I think what you're 'reinventing' here, if I understand you right, is not really related to planets being 'role of the sun' and 'role of the moon' and simply just oriental and occidental of the sun. Or indeed waxing and waning. The traditional scheme already includes, within its framework, the idea of noting the difference between an applying and separating square, or, to reword the exact same thing, a waxing and waning one etc.

For most purposes, the slower planet assumes the role of the Sun, the faster one the role of the Moon. Yes, the domicile scheme differentiates between the applying and the separating square etc. but isn't specific on the Opposition and the Conjunction.

Michael wrote:

A gap is the inevitable result of contracting the Sun and the Moon as well as the two Saturn positions into one so that we would arrive at the Conjunction and the Opposition.

Paul replied:

But in doing so, as per my point in my last message, the very tenet that you're resting this on - having a lunar part and a solar part - disappears. It is not that a planet can be diurnal or nocturnal, solar or lunar, as determined by the hemisphere it resides upon, because there is suddenly no hemisphere, suddenly no lunar and solar thing to compare with, there is just this hybrid, and we have no clear dividing line.

No, the Solar part and the Lunar part don't disappear. A planet projects the Solar half of its individual wheel of aspects ahead of itself in the order of the signs, and the Lunar half backwards. It sits right on the line between the two halves. This is true for every planet, regardless of whether it is the slower or faster one in a given relationship - but the slower one will take on the role of the Sun and therefore indicate if the aspect overall is waxing or waning. This is in accordance with traditional astrology.

Instead we have to divide the line, which is now among ten signs, and not twelve, either before the Luminary hybrid sign, or after it.

No; using your words, the ?Luminary hybrid sign? would extend to both sides of the ?Luminary hybrid?. Only that we don't have signs on the wheel of aspects. But you can think of the 15? area on either side as the (maximum) orb of an aspect. So I am simply adapting the domicile scheme to the wheel of aspects. For they are closely related, yet not the same.

Michael Sternbach wrote:
Bear in mind that you need some milestones on your cycle! The 12fold division comes in handy....

So I look at minor aspects (meaning any which are not derived from 30? sectors) as something comparable to asteroids - not part of astrology's basic scheme, albeit the effects are undeniable.
Michael

hi michael,

thanks for articulating your viewpoint on my comments.. i have chopped up your post here to only comment on what i would like to address, although anyone reading the whole content of your post will quickly come to recognize what i am going to say here..

it seems to me aspects were a later frontier that came much later in astro development.. i may be wrong on this, but it also seems to me most astrologers i have read, especially those more focused on older astrological literature adopt a type of automatic hierarchy in their astrological thinking whereby aspects are always subject to the priority of what are considered more central priorities or tenets of astrology... planets first perhaps.. 12 signs or 12 houses 2nd... aspects - they all have to fit into this hierarchy and be understood in relation to this same hierarchy instead of being treated independently and separately from this emphasis...

it might be like taking apart a musical song and stating the melody is more important then the harmony and the rhythm is the last, or least important element to the music.. this is a bit how european and much western music is approached and obviously very different then how music is thought of in places like africa for example.. astrologers seem to fall prey to a similar manner of prioritizing how they interpret the astrology.. i am not saying one way is more valid then another way - just trying to point out what i have noticed.. it may very well go on in a more subjective manner, but it doesn't change how aspects are typically relegated in this manner, or only supposed to be understood in relation to your magical number 12 equation that you get from the yearly sun/moon cycle of 12 or 13 in a year.. nothing is perfect however, and even the 360 circle is a squeezing into a nice form, a 365 or 366 day year... but, regardless of this prioritizing of all aspects - pun intentional - aspects are also supposed to squeeze into this same emphasis on 12...

i am a part of the anti 12 school! one of my freedoms comes in thinking aspects don't have to be subject to this and can be seen having a life of their own.. there is a cycle to them as well based on numbers which can also have meaning... perhaps i am vying for an appreciation of aspects with numbers - numerology even perhaps, as opposed to this semi conscious or conscious fanaticism around the number 12.. what do you think of what i am saying?

what about the idea that aspects take on a life and meaning of their own

Hi James,

Thanks for your elaborate reply. And pardon my late response to it (I had to get over it first ).

it seems to me aspects were a later frontier that came much later in astro development..

Right, the original Mesopotamian astrologers would only consider the conjunction - and this is not even an aspect, at least according to the traditionalists. How easy it must have been to be an astrologer at that time!

i may be wrong on this, but it also seems to me most astrologers i have read, especially those more focused on older astrological literature adopt a type of automatic hierarchy in their astrological thinking whereby aspects are always subject to the priority of what are considered more central priorities or tenets of astrology... planets first perhaps..

Well, yes - you can dismiss almost any part of traditional astrology and still practice some type of astrology, but you can hardly drop the planets. You can limit yourself to studying their mutual relations using aspects and perhaps some additional methods. That's the path exemplified by Kepler which was taken up by a few modernist schools, to one degree or another. Now, Kepler was a forerunner of the scientific revolution, and I think his rejection of the less tangible parts of traditional astrology was mostly an attempt to make astrology more scientifically acceptable - rather like Ptolemy was already skipping or rationalizing those parts of the art that didn't seem to fit into Aristotelian cosmology. To this day, all such efforts are to no avail, I would say ? as all the scientists criticising astrology that I have met so far don't even take the time to properly comprehend its most simple basics.

I think that those schools following in Kepler's footsteps do miss out some essential information. Agreed, they may make up for this by including methods which at best play a marginal role in the more classically oriented schools. Personally, I don't see why it would have to be one or the other, though - besides for limiting the time and effort spent on the delineation of a given chart, perhaps.

12 signs or 12 houses 2nd... aspects - they all have to fit into this hierarchy and be understood in relation to this same hierarchy instead of being treated independently and separately from this emphasis...

I don't see this as a hierarchy. Perhaps as a holarchy to use a term more popular with metaphysical thinkers nowadays. Better yet, as an analogy. All of astrology is analogy, for that matter... What's occurring in the sky is reflected on Earth, simply said. Now, astrology further suggests that the realm of celestial symbolism is itself subdivided into multiple levels which are structurally analogous to each other. At least that's my understanding.

I'm sure that you have heard of Chaos Theory. It goes a long way in demonstrating that nature repeats its structures on different levels (fractals). Breaking down the multitude of existence to first principles as to see the simplicity underlying it all. Great scientists like Einstein strongly believed in this and were looking for a unified theory of everything. That's what we need in astrology as well, in my opinion ? a unified theory.

it might be like taking apart a musical song and stating the melody is more important then the harmony and the rhythm is the last, or least important element to the music.. this is a bit how european and much western music is approached and obviously very different then how music is thought of in places like africa for example.. astrologers seem to fall prey to a similar manner of prioritizing how they interpret the astrology.. i am not saying one way is more valid then another way - just trying to point out what i have noticed..

That's an interesting metaphor! Yes, I can see that various approaches to astrology are possible, much like there can be different approaches to music. But it may be as difficult to even compare one with the other as it would be to compare, let's say, Jazz with classical music.

it may very well go on in a more subjective manner, but it doesn't change how aspects are typically relegated in this manner, or only supposed to be understood in relation to your magical number 12 equation that you get from the yearly sun/moon cycle of 12 or 13 in a year.. nothing is perfect however, and even the 360 circle is a squeezing into a nice form, a 365 or 366 day year... but, regardless of this prioritizing of all aspects - pun intentional - aspects are also supposed to squeeze into this same emphasis on 12...

The Sun/Moon cycle is the model for astrology in general, and aspects in particular, as I would maintain. I don't think that I'm squeezing or forcing anything when all I'm doing is reading what nature is showing all the time, really.

i am a part of the anti 12 school! one of my freedoms comes in thinking aspects don't have to be subject to this and can be seen having a life of their own.. there is a cycle to them as well based on numbers which can also have meaning... perhaps i am vying for an appreciation of aspects with numbers - numerology even perhaps, as opposed to this semi conscious or conscious fanaticism around the number 12..

The number 12 in fact numerologically always stands for something completing, coming full circle. This is not to say that divisions of the circle based on other numbers can't have meaning, too, and that's why I don't turn down minor aspects. Sometimes such influence can be really important, but they don't belong to the most fundamental category.

what do you think of what i am saying?

Well, except for the ?fanaticism around the number 12? part, I comprehend and appreciate your outlook. I think that I made my own position on this sufficiently transparent, for the time being, however I see your outlook as complementary to my own, to a degree. Maybe, if you were a Jazz musician (which you are) I'd be a classical musician (which I'm not)?

what about the idea that aspects take on a life and meaning of their own

I am thinking this, too. Surely the planets have a life of their own as they don't keep the same predefined relationship to each other, as the signs and houses (especially in Equal) do, and that's where the whole issue of aspects originates, in a way.

In another way, I account for the divergent nature of the aspects by making certain modifications to the domicile scheme (the very basis of all astrology in my classically biased view ) as I explained in my previous posts.