Here's a thought for your consideration. It's been my (admittedly anecdotal) experience that events are more likely to happen when Placidus mundane aspects occur than when zodiacal ones do. The latter seem to set up conditions and the former to give them a path to "ground" triggering events.

This becomes relevant to the Pluto discussion because it has potentially large celestial latitude, and so the timing of its mundane aspects tends to differ from that of its zodiacal ones more than for the other planets.

This difference can be applied for most dynamic methods: transits, the various progressions, primaries.

- Ed

Tom wrote:Pluto transits and their lack of effect are what sent me to traditional astrology once and for all.

Did you have similar lack of effect with Uranus and Neptune?

zoidsoft wrote:I have little doubt that Pluto transits work. I've seen it for 20 years before I got into traditional techniques.

Didn't these experiences withhold you frong going traditional? How do you reconcile these experiences?
I also often manage to find Saturn transits also to be relevant in the same periods of Pluto's when using an orb of 3? ? 4?. However there are some 'open spots' left.

What people have to remember is that because of Bodes Law, all the outer planets circular periods are multiples of Saturn. Uranus is 3 Saturn cycles, Neptune is 6 and Pluto is 9 Saturn cycles. Working with harmonics is the modern equivalent of the ancient practice of using planetary periods / time lords to measure time.

This is called resonance. Although a very interesting phenomenon, I'm not sure whether one should use resonance as reason to use solar system bodies. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter have many asteroids in resonance with Jupiter and like Pluto there are many asteroids in that corner that have a similar 2:3 orbit resonance to Neptune as Pluto. These are classified as 'Plutino's'. They all are stronomically fascinating, but they are with too many to use for astrology, in my opinion.
Moreover when I notice that it takes some time to find even Uranus or Neptune with a pair of binoculars on a clear night, and still then they are tiny points apparently not different from stars, I've often felt attracted to using the visible planets alone. I had this feeling 13 years ago already, but never dared to take a definite decision.

Ed F wrote:This becomes relevant to the Pluto discussion because it has potentially large celestial latitude, and so the timing of its mundane aspects tends to differ from that of its zodiacal ones more than for the other planets.

Pluto's distance to the ecliptic is rather something that always has rather been discomforting to me. Sometimes an ecliptical conjunction with Pluto could turn out to be a distance in latitude of 20?. Pretty ineffective in terms of the 'conjoinment' of the conjunction.

This difference can be applied for most dynamic methods: transits, the various progressions, primaries.

How can progressions and transits be used on the in mundo charts? Since with this category of reference frames the planets are fixed on the Earth (according to Placidus, Campanus, Meridian mundane etc.) progressions and transits go really fast. With transits every planet (from the fastest to the slowest) goes through the in mundo reference frame in ca. one day, conjuncting every planet. It's like transits of the angles through the ecliptic. These too are very fast. An option could be to 'attach' the mundane frame to the celestial sphere (or fixed stars), but then you give up the most characteristic trait of in mundo, namely its being attached to the surface (horizon) of the Earth.

Tom wrote:
Pluto transits and their lack of effect are what sent me to traditional astrology once and for all.
Did you have similar lack of effect with Uranus and Neptune?

Yup. Again like Pluto, there was a single event that coincided with their transits. In the late 1980s they were both floating around early Capricorn which is the position of my POF and opposes my natal Moon. While this makes sense to most traditionalists, I no longer think it applies to divorce. Besides a divorce may legally take place in an instant, but it is a long drawn out affair in real life and therefore appropriate for an outer planet transit.

But on the other hand Uranus transited Aquarius not too long ago and if we add early Pisces to the transit, Uranus contacted every planet in my chart and crossed the DSC not to mention squared the MC-IC axis. Nothing happened at any time that coincided with that transit contacting anything.

In his book of declination, Rob Hand suggested that declination does play a role in the effectiveness of transits. But this goes back to the thinking that transits, by themselves, are solid indicators of events and therefore we can predict from them alone. I no longer believe that either. Transits are effective when something else is going on in the chart, e.g., directions, progressions, and/or returns. The more that occur at that time the more likely the transit is to indicate something important. Worsdale may have had it right. Prediction of major life events requires a piling up of various testimonies. As my first astrology teacher put it, "Transits are not enough."

Eddy wrote:

This difference can be applied for most dynamic methods: transits, the various progressions, primaries.

How can progressions and transits be used on the in mundo charts? Since with this category of reference frames the planets are fixed on the Earth (according to Placidus, Campanus, Meridian mundane etc.) progressions and transits go really fast. With transits every planet (from the fastest to the slowest) goes through the in mundo reference frame in ca. one day, conjuncting every planet. It's like transits of the angles through the ecliptic. These too are very fast. An option could be to 'attach' the mundane frame to the celestial sphere (or fixed stars), but then you give up the most characteristic trait of in mundo, namely its being attached to the surface (horizon) of the Earth.

Two methods can be used for chart comparisons:

1. The one you suggest (direct comparison of normalized positions with the angles overlaid as though they were the same reference frame), which is useful for primary directions, secondary progressions (~1 degree of movement of the cusps per day using the quotidian method), and what Polich and Page called ascensional transits (very fast, but possibly event triggers - I've seen them often enough).

These are analogous to comparing tropical positions in terms of how the different frames of reference for the events being compared are resolved.

2. Take ecliptical positions from a dynamic chart and normalize them in the mundane frame of the radix. This can be used with progressed and transit charts. The analogy here is much like using a precession-corrected chart: the objects of one chart are translated into the frame of reference of the other.

I do use secondary motion when drawing derived dynamic charts in the mundane reference frame. Two different considerations.

- Ed

I find Pluto transits to be quite effective, not just in my own life but in the lives of others...using simple ecliptical longitude right out of the ephemeris.

Examples:

A friend had natal Pluto in Leo, 12th House square Scorpio Sun in 4th...He committed suicide when Pluto by transit reached exactly 45 degrees 00 minutes from his natal Sun.

I saw my mother alive for the very last time in my life when Pluto transited my natal Moon. Immediately following that final visit with my mother I experienced a very deep and wholly spontaneous psychological/spiritual realization that was life-changing.

Recently I had medical treatment for a long-standing gastrointestinal condition, just as Pluto passed over my directed Moon in the Sixth House. The condition first became apparent when Pluto entered the Sixth and then opposed the Sixth lord, Jupiter. Up until that point in my life (I'm old) I had always been relatively free of health problems.

If some people "feel" Pluto and others don't, I suspect it may have to do with the prominence of Pluto in the birth chart. In my own chart Pluto is brought to prominence in two ways: First, he participates in the key opposition contained in the chart -- this opposition marks the central core issue in my life...and Second, Pluto occupies the midpoint of the two planets containing seven of the ten planets in an opposition-type whole chart pattern, thus binding together (giving a central focus to...in the body of Pluto) what otherwise might seem a rather scattered, disconnected planetary grouping.

In the case of my astrologer friend who was stabbed when the retrograde transit of Pluto was within one minute of arc of his Mars, Pluto is not prominent in the natal chart, but Mars is exceptionally powerful. At the time of the incident there were two other heavy-body transits in play, but the symbolism of Mars-Pluto is hard to ignore.

It may also be that a Pluto transit produces no readily apparent external events, but instead works under the surface to create conditions that will erupt at some later date.

I have the chart of a young man who was arrested when transiting Saturn and Pluto came to mundane square on his natal angles, just as secondary progressed Moon entered the intercepted Pisces in his natal 12th House (to the day). The cause of the arrest was a single action five years earlier (things from the past coming to haunt you.)

It might also be noted that a mundane square of Saturn-Pluto is on the angles of the chart for the giant earthquake that hit Concepcion, Chile. This square was effective for about a month at that latitude (the only other place on Earth affected by this square was Melbourne, Australia and of those two locations Chile is the one commonly subject to earthquakes.) In general I don't find astrology effective in earthquake prediction, but the Concepcion chart is rather striking; Mercury seems to be the triggering planet there.

As far as the other two trans-Saturnian planets go, Some years ago Neptune was cazimi in my own solar return. Neptune is a very powerful planet in the natal chart. This return cazimi coincided exactly in time with the single most powerful spiritual event of my life. It also coincided, to the day, with the application of anesthesia and surgery (8th House involvement).

Anyway, those are a few (from among many) examples of the effectiveness of modern-planet transits, for what they are worth.

A modern astrology perspective:

I've just picked up Robert Blaschke's book on progressions. He opens with some "rules" by the early 20th century astrologer Charles Carter. Carter claimed that progressions wouldn't affect people very much unless what the progression symbolized was foreshadowed in the natal chart. I read this to mean that a progression to a ho-hum natal house, sign, or planet probably won't be a huge event in your life. Carter also stated that a progression won't be activated unless/until a a relevant transit hits it.

Believe this or don't-- I haven't checked it out with horoscopes.

I personally find Pluto transits to the sun and natal sun-Pluto aspects to be very compelling, however. The most difficult transit of my life was a lengthy Pluto square sun, followed by Pluto square Mars. Natally I have a wide sun opposite Pluto.

What I began to realize near the end of these Pluto transits was that I had disowned the Pluto energies (ruthlessness, underworld associations, decay) in my life and pasted them onto other people. My career was periodically dogged by Plutonian supervisors or co-workers who seemingly set out to destroy me professionally, for example. After I began to own my "inner Pluto" these guys unsurprisingly sort of went away.

Another point is that oftentimes people who claim that transits do not work do not contemplate the entire range of the phenomena that a planet rules. In the case of sun square Pluto, for example, maybe the "hit" isn't to one's own ego/sense of identity; but to something else that sun rules, such as one's father in a day birth, a woman's husband, a ruler or political leader, &c.

Recently with transiting Pluto toying around with a semi-square to my sun, I was interested to see whether anything would happen with this "minor" aspect. Interestingly, my husband (sun in a woman's chart) got involved with some ruthless power struggles (Pluto) within the board of a non-profit society to which he belongs! I sort of got sucked into them, as well; although not at his level of intensity.

Thankfully I had read Eckhart Tolle's books since my prior difficult Pluto transits, and I realized how much of these inter-personal dynamics were just the result of ego conflicts, and little more. In letting go of my ego component, I was able to put the problems into a much lighter and easier perspective. So has my husband.

So transits are there to teach us something--if we can remain open to it.

Carter claimed that progressions wouldn't affect people very much unless what the progression symbolized was foreshadowed in the natal chart

Substitute primary directions for progressions and this is a very old idea. Much, much older than Carter.

Eddy wrote:

zoidsoft wrote:I have little doubt that Pluto transits work. I've seen it for 20 years before I got into traditional techniques.

Didn't these experiences withhold you frong going traditional? How do you reconcile these experiences?

No. I just felt that the psychological approach wasn't the whole story. It's foolish to assume that something as grand as this world can be completely understood from only one perspective...

However, I felt for a long time in my dealings with skeptics that the foundation of astrology was not secure. This was one of the reasons why I was so interested in Schmidt's work because nobody else in the field has the broad scientific, mathematical, philosophical and technical command of classical languages to be able to put skeptics in their place. Most modern astrologers don't understand science well enough to be able to defeat attacks from the scientific community (so many call it an "art" to get past this shortcoming), but Schmidt having been trained as a physicist first emphasized that trying to get at the philosophical foundation from which all sciences rest is the way in which all sciences become legitimate (because no science gets anywhere without having placed philosophy first).

I used to think that the reason why Schmidt was attacked so much was because astrologers don't want to question their assumptions and treat astrology more like a religion than a mental discipline. This is obviously true of some folks. People have wrongly called me a "hellenista" because I say that traditional methods work better for "nuts and bolts" issues, but what most people don't realize is that I remember Dane Rudhyar and had studied for years while he was still alive. I think astrologers attack other astrologers to try to get a place of authority for themselves in the field to try to put themselves up on a pedistal, but I have never cared for the title "astrologer" or wanted to be thought of in that way. It is the reason why I have spent so much time in computer science, mathematics and philosophy because the field of astrology is on very shaky ground and is a disgraced subject. To be regarded as an "authority" with only astrology as your field is asking to place your career on shaky ground as well. Where I really stand on the subject is best explained in an article I wrote in 1999 (Theory of Geocosmic Coincidence):

http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-file ... dence.html

Of course it is not just Schmidt, but everybody gets attacked. This is especially so in being the dynamic of a disgraced subject (and often a repressed people) because such are more prone to turn on themselves rather than face their oppressors. That which oppresses astrology is the Descartian idea that the only thing that is real is extension. Skeptics say that they will not accept extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence and then attempt to reduce all measurements as extensive magnitudes rather than intensive magnitudes. This is a mistake that science began to overcome with the ideas inherent in relativity theory (speed of light thought of as an intensive magnitude, but measured in terms of miles/second which is extension).

Tom wrote:In his book of declination, Rob Hand suggested that declination does play a role in the effectiveness of transits. But this goes back to the thinking that transits, by themselves, are solid indicators of events and therefore we can predict from them alone.

Still the declination could be of use to consider the strength of transits themselves. I feel strongly attracted to transits because the concept is simple: the actual position is compared to the natal positions, this feels the most natural thing to do compared to the more complicated concepts of 1 day is 1 year and time lords etc.

The differences in effectiveness of transits could also be because of the differences of condition of persons. Like one time you might hardly support alcohol and the other time you do. From this point of view the undelying effect of progressions etc. isn't necessary.

I used the transits mainly to check a change in mood, but I think there's a danger in doing that too often.

Ed F wrote:Two methods can be used for chart comparisons:
(...)

The first method should be used with care I think, it might drive you nuts checking these every day. Perhaps it might be useful for newborn babies in the first months or year of life.

The second would be a more usable option. I experimented with the equatorial positions for a while. Which was easy because my astronomy annuals give positions in equatorial positions. I later rejected it for several grounds, one of them was that I couldn't trace back the effects of Pluto.

My way of syllogic reasoning says that they can't be used both at the same time.
- If 1 is correct and
- if 2 is correct too and further
- if primary directions work then it follows
that:
the primary directions to the angles with slight differences by secondary motion will show two peaks, one for the fixed position the other for the moved position (secondary motion).

zoidsoft wrote:I used to think that the reason why Schmidt was attacked so much was because astrologers don't want to question their assumptions and treat astrology more like a religion than a mental discipline.

I think that more astrologers are attacked by colleague astrologers than by scientists. Many scientists just ignore it. Likewise many scientists are atheist but they won't attack religious groups. The skeptics are a relatively small group and not always scientists (e.g. Randi is a magician).

We need a healthy amount of sceptism to criticise ourselves. I see myself as very critical. I remember that a few years ago there was a forum eclipse discussion about an eclipse in the first decanate of Aquarius. In a forum someone stated that this would mean disaster for anyone born under a Sun in the first decanate of the fixed signs. When I objected to this with some wit, I was cut to pieces.

_
Every night now one can see Jupiter high in the sky and very bright, a magnificent sight. Even if Pluto is used, it is a fact that the main inspirator of the development of astrology has been the visibility of events.

Eddy wrote: My way of syllogic reasoning says that they can't be used both at the same time.
- If 1 is correct and
- if 2 is correct too and further
- if primary directions work then it follows
that:
the primary directions to the angles with slight differences by secondary motion will show two peaks, one for the fixed position the other for the moved position (secondary motion)...

But note that I didn't claim correctness for #1 or #2, only that I use the latter because I consider the method of dynamics used, the frame of reference used, and the method for comparing charted events to each be an independent matter.

- Ed

Sorry for misunderstanding you Ed. When you wrote (under 2)
"This can be used with progressed and transit charts", I assumed that you used primary directions in 1. I therefore argued with the (perhaps unclear) syllogism that primary directions can be used in 2. Because the horizon also moves through that chart towards fixed positions of planets. In that case I can't place the use of secondary motion.