Skyscript Astrology Forum

Gemato wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2024 4:35 pm I was wondering if you could give me your thoughts on the conundrum of directions to the angles and how we can better determine the effects of such directions. The question can be summarized in the following way: How do we determine to which area of life is affected when the body of a planet is directed to the IC (and hence simultaneously opposes the MC and squares the Asc) and when the body of a planet reaches the DSC (vice versa).

Martin Gansten wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2024 6:52 pm

Gemato wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2024 4:35 pm I was wondering if you could give me your thoughts on the conundrum of directions to the angles and how we can better determine the effects of such directions. The question can be summarized in the following way: How do we determine to which area of life is affected when the body of a planet is directed to the IC (and hence simultaneously opposes the MC and squares the Asc) and when the body of a planet reaches the DSC (vice versa).

This does not exactly answer your question, but please note that if you are using ordinary, zodiacal aspects, then most of the time a planet reaching the IC by primary motion (traditionally described as 'MC directed to the opposition of the planet') will not in fact coincide with the same planet's square points reaching the Asc and Dsc ('Asc directed to the square of the planet').

If you are using Placidean aspects in mundo, on the other hand, any planet reaching an angle will by definition always form squares and an opposition to the remaining three angles.

Martin Gansten wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 6:12 pm Right. My own practice is to use the ordinary kind of aspects taken in the ecliptic. Additionally, I do consider conjunctions and oppositions with latitude, but I don't assign latitude to other aspect points, and I don't use mundane aspects at all. (This approach is based on my personal experience, but, as a friend pointed out when we discussed it, William Lilly did the same. Lilly used minor aspects, though, and the position-circle method of Regiomontanus, which I don't.) So I don't get the problem of 'one for all, all for one' with respect to the angles.

Gemato wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 1:52 am Why is it that we use the circle of the equator to measure the motion and time of directions but the active points within this motion are drawn entirely from somewhere else?

Martin Gansten wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 8:06 pm

Gemato wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 1:52 am Why is it that we use the circle of the equator to measure the motion and time of directions but the active points within this motion are drawn entirely from somewhere else?

That's a fair question. The answer, I think, is that the zodiac, as the belt within which all the visible planets are seen to move, has been accorded symbolic significance since the time of Babylonian proto-astrology. This included both the twelve signs and their subdivisions into 60 sets of terms; and when the aspect doctrine came along, the points of aspects were also taken in the zodiac, or, to be more precise, in the ecliptic (the circle in the middle of the belt).

Eventually, much importance began to be attached to the rising (and, to a lesser but significant extent, the culminating) degree of the ecliptic, both in the static image of the nativity (the radix) and in its dynamic unfolding (the directions). Now, it is just an astronomical fact that the earth rotates around the polar axis of the equator, not around the axis of the ecliptic (the difference or axial tilt, known as the obliquity of the ecliptic, being the reason we have seasons, etc). From the perspective of observational astronomy, this means that the celestial equator is what rises due east and sets due west, dragging the ecliptic/zodiac along, as it were, in a wobbling motion. So we use the circle of the equator to measure time and motion because it is what, in fact, creates that motion. But it is the zodiac, which is carried along with it, that contains the points of astrological significance: the signs, the terms, the planets, and the aspect points.

So if you were born with, say, Jupiter at 12° Aries, then the point in the zodiac that we call 12° Leo would be infused with the meaning of a trine from Jupiter. If, at the moment of your birth, that point had just reached the horizon or meridian, it would signify something pertaining to your life as a whole; if it did so some time after birth, it would signify a theme, an event, or a series of events during a particular period in your life.

janegca wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 6:24 pm Hi ... there is a really interesting little video by 3Blue1Brown: Feynman's Lost Lecture that "recounts a lecture by Richard Feynman giving an elementary demonstration of why planets orbit in ellipses. " but it also, for me, explains how 360° of motion maps to the ecliptic.

Although I in no way claim to fully understand the math involved, the graphics, for me, explained how the Earth's 360° of axial motion, which takes 365.25 days, can map to the 360° of the ecliptic or why we measure time and motion in RA and aspects in longitude.

Be curious to know how others view it.

Gemato wrote: Sun Feb 18, 2024 12:20 am I’m gonna have to watch this a few more times before I can give you my views on it

Gemato wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2024 4:35 pm Hello everyone

I was wondering if you could give me your thoughts on the conundrum of directions to the angles and how we can better determine the effects of such directions. The question can be summarized in the following way: How do we determine to which area of life is affected when the body of a planet is directed to the IC (and hence simultaneously opposes the MC and squares the Asc) and when the body of a planet reaches the DSC (vice versa). This would technically also apply to the ASC/MC but I find that these directions typically only effect the areas if life indicated by these two significators. I can’t recall if this is ever explicitly addressed in any text except I think one of Dr. Gansten’s book (I can’t find the reference atm) Which methodology should we employ to assess this? Do we:

1) Consider the effect to be linked to both Asc/MC. This is is what I do, but makes it difficult to reach any determinate conclusion since you mix the significations of both into a vague melange of “your health and career will be impacted” which does on occasion occur but it is so far from anything remotely concrete and I’ve had no success teasing out any specifics even in terms of negative/positive such as “positives in health, negatives in careers”

2) Prioritize the opposed angle as the opposition is “traditionally” stronger than the square.

3) Make the DSC and IC significators in themselves and take the effect from there. Hence directions of a planet’s body to the IC would impact home, estate, fathers etc. and the DSC would impact partnership, marriages, etc.

Happy to have any input and as always I value actual experience over theory so any would be appreciated.

• Suppose the planet is in the 5th house. Its dexter square approaches IC.
• At the same time, its bodily position comes to DSC

• Conflicts with parents because of their money
• Bodily injuries of parents because of native's children
• Fire in the house is connected with bodily pleasure.
  etc.

• Conflicts with children
• Lawsuits because of parent's money, etc.