Why some "angles" and not others?

Q&A and discussion on Angularity.
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 4803
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:33 am

Let me give a couple of examples to make this concrete.

You have my birth data. My Ascendant is 2°20' Virgo, with SVP 5°53' Pisces, so my horizon is three and a half degrees off the equinoxes. My EP is 1°00', square to MC is 1°46' Virgo, and Vertex is 26°12' Aquarius.

So, is my 27°24' Aquarius Moon angular? Yes... but only once! Angles aren't like planets - they don't have aspects. You don't accumulate them and add them up as separate angularities. For the phenomenon we call angularity, the question boils down to "how close to 100% expressive is this planet?" The answer is found in the single closest angular contact.

So, my Moon is setting: It is 3°15' below Descendant in the mundoscope.
My Moon is actually too far from Westpoint: It is 5°11' in RA. (But I think you get the argument that, for a slightly different birth time, it could have also been in orb of WP. But this wouldn't have mattered if the Descendant contact was stronger.) It is also too wide to be square MC.
My Moon may be on Vertex: In longitude, it is 1°12' away, and in azimuth (probably the better measurement) it 4°11', so it probably isn't really on Vertex. But, again, you can see the argument that, with a slightly different birth time, it would have had this conjunction also.

Rectify my chart to an Asc 5°53'13" Virgo, or 4:30:54 AM, and you will see all four of these axes in the same minute.


Second example that makes the example: Yesterday, I wrote about the Chinese mass lynching in Los Angeles in 1871: http://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1502

The Arilunar for this makes an interesting example. It occurred September 29, 1871, 6:44:13 PM LMT, 34N03'43", 118W14'17". We find the following main pattern:

EP 28°09' Pisces
Moon 0°00' Aries
Neptune 0°10' Aries
Asc 6°16' Aries

Now, this isn't a case of the angles being converged in the same degree, but it makes what I think is the main point. Let's break it down. Obviously, we have a very powerful Moon-Neptune conjunction, only 0°10' wide and near an angle. At first glance, it looks like the EP is the stronger contact. Checking RA, though, we find Moon is 3°25' from EP (I wouldn't even count that), and Neptune is 2°34' away (I'd count that, and call it wide).

In contrast, the mundoscope shows Moon 0°08' below Ascendant, and Neptune 2°01' above it. These are (1) closer in absolute orbs, and (2) Ascendant has a much wider reach than EP anyway. There is no question that the contacts with Asc are stronger than the contacts with EP.

But, for where I think your logic is going, one could argue that Neptune is conjunct both angles, right? It is 2°34' from EP, and 2°01' from Ascendant. If I'm following your thinking correctly, you would want to say that Neptune is angular twice. I say it isn't: It has reached somewhere around 20% of its potential strength from the EP contact (I'm estimating), and about 80% of its potential strength from the Asc contact, but that doesn't mean we can add them and make it 100%. Neptune's proximity to Asc makes it quite strong all by itself.

Is this the kind of thing you're looking at? It seems to me that it must be what's rolling through your head.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

SteveS
Sidereal Field Agent
Sidereal Field Agent
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by SteveS » Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:25 am

Jim asked:
Is this the kind of thing you're looking at? It seems to me that it must be what's rolling through your head.
I think so, yes, this is 'what is rolling through my head', trying to understand these angles better. Yesterday you mention in another thread Neptune angular in the DC 2020 Cansolar. I noted DC's 2020 Cansolar the EP, Anti-Vertex, and Asc were partile cnj. Then I noticed Mars/Neptune=Asc-EP,AX. This is the first SMA chart I have witness when 3 angles partile cnj, and you know I have looked at hundreds of SMA charts. BTW, this Cansolar will only take on major financial status in my SMA financial research—if I see a Dow price parabolic curve from March 2009 bottom in place like the parabolic price curve which was in place with Iceland’s OMX price index for the decade of 1998-2007. In other words: A possible precise timed Neptunian Bubble with the Dow.
DC 2020 Cansolar: http://imgur.com/a/gTP8J

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 4803
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by Jim Eshelman » Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:02 pm

To update you on my thinking... I think the Midequator isn't work pursuing. I do encourage everyone to at least casually observe it, to add to our collective expertise... but I now don't think we'll find anything worth pursuing.

I've now made it through most of the catalogue fires, recalculating every solar and lunar ingress and, among other things, checking ME contacts. I'm not impressed. There aren't a lot (strangely) and, when they exist, they are as likely to be wrong as to be right. (I'm not keeping exact numbers... just casually observing and ticking off in my head... but there hasn't been a single, "Oh, how could I have missed that before?!" moment.

Presuming nothing derails this "final" conclusion, the original thesis above needs to be modified to drop out the Celestial Equator formulations. This really doesn't affect anything else at all, other than Eastpoint only being two distinctive intersections instead of three; which means, on a practical basis, it has no consequence at all. The points worthy of attention are constrained to intersections of the two from the set horizon, meridian, prime vertical, and ecliptic.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jupiter Sets at Dawn
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 7:03 pm

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by Jupiter Sets at Dawn » Sun Jul 02, 2017 11:09 pm

OK, I may be confused here, but it appears you're saying the Celestial Equator (which is the same as the earthly equator projected out into space) has nothing to do with angularity. Isn't the equinox that's the fiduciary for the tropical zodiac the point where the sun crosses the celestial equator from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere?

Is this one more proof the tropical zodiac is based on a human-made fictional marking system rather than anything based in nature? I'm trying to say something about the tropical zodiac being a calendar based system based off the celestial equator with as much validity as any other calendar system... or maybe I mean like a calendar based system?

Or something.

SteveS
Sidereal Field Agent
Sidereal Field Agent
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by SteveS » Sun Jul 16, 2017 7:26 am

Paris, France 1789 Capsolar, preceding the ‘Storming of the Bastille’ by the people of France—kick- starting the French Revolution:
Par-excellent symbolism of partile Moon-Mars 180 falling partile on ME axis.
http://imgur.com/a/C9pgx
But, where is Uranus for the ‘Revolution’? We find Uranus hidden in the Z-Analogue Altitude Chart below for this Capsolar:
Jupiter-Uranus partile IC in altitude, and Sun-Mars partile MC in altitude. This is an outlier example—but still interesting for this event, imo.
http://imgur.com/a/nB7wk

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 4803
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by Jim Eshelman » Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:34 am

SteveS wrote:
Sun Jul 16, 2017 7:26 am
Paris, France 1789 Capsolar, preceding the ‘Storming of the Bastille’ by the people of France—kick- starting the French Revolution:
And a belated Happy Bastille Day to you!
Par-excellent symbolism of partile Moon-Mars 180 falling partile on ME axis.
Good catch. A rare instance of this showing:

ME 26°07' Sagittarius
Moon 26°14' Gemini
Mars 26°25' Sagittarius

I hadn't worked my way down to the "Uprisings" chapter yet, so I hadn't seen this. I continue to look as I go (I'm reworking every ingress of every event from the front of the book to the book, looking at these possible "stretch" factors) and this is almost the only example that has shown the ME with any valid effect at all. (There are a couple of others but, really, strikingly few.)

In this case, especially since Moon is involved, the "new" angle isn't really needed. The 0°11' Moon-Mars opposition is operative anyway, and is even foreground. Neptune is < 2° from Descendant, and Uranus partile square Ascendant. It's a rabid, mob-fuelling chart that is totally set off by the July 7 Caplunar (you'll love the mundoscope of that one for Liberte Fraternite Egalite - respectively, Uranus, Venus, and Jupiter all setting, plus Mars on IC. The day was timed by an exact Venus-Uranus conjunction transiting square Capsolar Ascendant. The CapQ seals the deal with Mars and Neptune exactly angular.
But, where is Uranus for the ‘Revolution’? We find Uranus hidden in the Z-Analogue Altitude Chart below for this Capsolar:
BTW, Steve, there is an easier way to get these MAC contacts. You never have to do an Azimuth analogue chart again :) Just open the Capsolar chart, click Reports, and look at the last column, the Altitude column. You can get all the MC and IC MAC contacts by seeing if anything is within a degree of MC. In this case, MC has altitude +18°33' Uranus has altitude -19°00'.

But you don't need it for this chart: As mentioned above, we already have the Uranus, 0°31' from square Ascendant in the Capsolar. No need for anything new.

BTW, MAC has proven disappointing. I had high hopes for it. When it hits, it hits dramatically - but it also has a startling number of complete misses, and a startling number of neutral "can't tell" hits (casual observation suggests that Sun is the single most common planet to match the MC or IC in altitude - if I'd been tabulating these by planets instead of scores, there would probably be a huge spike at Sun, regardless of type of event which, of course, is meaningless). Out of 171 MAC incidents I've catalogued so far for major mundane events (ignoring cases where the planet was already angular), the largest number do, indeed, have a +2 score - they do really well - 74 out of the 171. But, altogether, only a bit more than half (92 out of 171) have +1 or +2, and we need better than 50-50 for prediction. 21% have neutral scores (there's a planet there, but you can't tell anything from it either pro or con), and a fourth of the events have mismatched planets.

Oops, I showed bad discipline, bringing the detailed MAC comments into this thread instead of saving it for its own thread. I'll stop - but thought you'd like an update. It's frustrating, because some of them are so staggeringly good. Unfortunately, we don't know which half of the time the planet will be right. (In this case, it's a side issue because we already have Uranus partile on an angle.)
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 4803
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by Jim Eshelman » Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:59 am

PS - Today, of all days, I'd really like the Midequator to be important, because today transiting Jupiter exactly squares my SSR EP. That would be a nice offset of today being the exact square of Saturn to my natal Moon.

But I don't think I'll get the Jupiter transit today. At best, I'll see that the dragging Saturn-to-Moon will have peaked somewhat and may have a bit of release (one might hope). We left town yesterday morning to get out of the LA air: All the smoke from the big Santa Barbara fires flows downhill into the LA basic and accumulates, while Santa Barbara County itself is one of the few quality air regions in the state - even while the fires rage! It's definitely ironic, yes? The smoke is high in the atmosphere in Santa Barbara area, and is barely noticeable at ground level (usually not noticeable at all). Yesterday, near Gaviota, we saw the Whittier fire smoke plume rising inland, beyond the hills, in gigantic clouds of smoke, flow overhead to go offshore, and then take a sharp turn south - I mean sharp, probably even an acute angle with a hard angle on the cloud like a bent elbow. It got all the way off shore and then wind currents apparently caught it, and it shot south, a gigantic stream headed toward LA.

All this accumulation has made it a little difficult breathing this last week - as Saturn got closer to my Moon, though I'm sure I'm not the only one affected LOL. So, rather than setting myself up for a more serious problem, I picked a little hardship, deprivation of good Internet signal most of the day, and the like to head out of town for the peak.

I have to be back by tonight to head for work tomorrow, but by then (by now, actually) the exact transit will have peaked.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

SteveS
Sidereal Field Agent
Sidereal Field Agent
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by SteveS » Sun Jul 16, 2017 10:34 am

Jim wrote:
In this case, especially since Moon is involved, the "new" angle isn't really needed.
Exactly! But, I do find it somewhat interesting mundo Mars is 10,03 from primary MC, but this Mars is on the ME axis and Analogue Altitude axis. Still, I agree with you, the Sidereal Astrologer really does not need these other two points to see the potency of this partile Moon-Mars 180 working collectedly on the people of Paris.
Jim wrote:
BTW, Steve, there is an easier way to get these MAC contacts. You never have to do an Azimuth analogue chart again :) Just open the Capsolar chart, click Reports, and look at the last column, the Altitude column. You can get all the MC and IC MAC contacts by seeing if anything is within a degree of MC. In this case, MC has altitude +18°33' Uranus has altitude -19°00'.
8-) , I love learning new techniques from you and SF.
Jim wrote:
But you don't need it for this chart: As mentioned above, we already have the Uranus, 0°31' from square Ascendant in the Capsolar. No need for anything new.
I missed this huge Capsolar Uranus (revolutionary) factor, thanks for pointing it out to me. This Capsolar really captures the collective psychological essence of the Paris populace for 1789. Capsolars will never cease to amaze me for certain main events of the year. I wish more mundane astrologers had SMA eyes.

Bummer on the LA smoke Jim.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 4803
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by Jim Eshelman » Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:00 am

Yes, the storming of the Bastille is a terrific mundane event! The full write-up begins on page 447 of the current edition of Sidereal Mundane Astrology, but I've given the basics above.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest