Why some "angles" and not others?

Q&A and discussion on Angularity.
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5565
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by Jim Eshelman » Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:40 pm

This may be going over only material that we've gone over before, but I've been thinking through this subject for the last few days and clarifying its relative simplicity (though, initially, seeming confusion). Also, when I write things out, I tend to get a bit more clarity. So here goes...

The bottom line - where I will end up - is that "angles" (significantly sensitized mundane positions) are formed from intersections of sufficiently important great circles.

The First Set
Our working mundane (local, non-celestial) framework is based on three mutually perpendicular great circles: the horizon, the meridian, and the prime vertical. Where the ecliptic intersects these, we have the most-cited, most-referenced, most-used angles.

The two opposing points where the ecliptic intersects the horizon are Ascendant and Descendant.
The two opposing points where the ecliptic intersects the meridian are Midheaven and Lower Heaven (IC).
The two opposing points where the ecliptic intersects the prime vertical are Vertex and Antivertex.

These are their ecliptical positions. For mundane positions, we measure proximity to their base great circle. We measure proximity to horizon and meridian along the prime vertical. Recent experiments have started to look at how to measure proximity to the prime vertical, and the most promising measurement so far is azimuth. However, despite these technical complications, the underlying concept is quite simple: Mundane proximity to Ascendant and Descendant is measured in proximity to the horizon; that to MC and IC is measured in proximity to the meridian; and that to Vertex and Antivertex is measured in proximity to the prime vertical.

The Second Set
The "second generation" points are all identified by places where two of our three primary measuring circles intersect. Intersections of any two of our primary framework circles gives the points ecliptically square the angles of the third circle. Specifically,

The two opposing points where the horizon and prime vertical intersect are the Eastpoint and Westpoint.
The two opposing points where the meridian and prime vertical intersect are the Zenith and Nadir.
The two opposing points where the horizon and meridian intersect are the Southpoint and Northpoint.

To determine the celestial longitude of these points (as for any points), we drop a great circle through a point and the ecliptical poles (i.e., at right angles to the ecliptic). When we do this, we find:

The ecliptic longitudes of Eastpoint & Westpoint (horizon meets prime vertical) are ecliptic squares to MC/IC.
The ecliptic longitudes of Zenith & Nadir (meridian meets prime vertical) are ecliptic squares to Asc/Dsc.
The ecliptic longitudes of Northpoint & Southpoint (horizon meets meridian) are ecliptic squares to Vertex/Antivertex.

How do we calculate these mundanely? I'm not sure we do. There are some interesting mathematical properties, but I'm inclined to take all of these ecliptically or, in the alternative, so say that they are already covered by other identifications. For example, the Northpoint and Southpoint, viewed mundanely, are either on the horizon or the meridian (they are the intersection of these two circles) so mundane proximity to the horizon and meridian already take care of the question. They are already absorbed into the mix. Unlike the First Set, they are points, not great circles. In practice, they appear to be intrinsically ecliptical expressions.

Is There a Third Set?
The First Set all involved actual intersections of a great circle with the ecliptic, and the second set all involved intersections of two of our primary great circles (horizon, meridian, prime vertical). Is there a third set? If so, I'm not sure what it would be; or, rather, I don't know of anything that meets the minimum definition that is emerging that we are dealing with points formed as an intersection.

For example, let's take the possibility of squares to the angles in right ascension. Are these valid? (We'll see a special case of this immediately below, involving MC, so let's skip that for the moment.) I've isolated a few charts where planets are square Asc or Vx in RA, and these have not been persuasive. For example, I have a very close friend with Saturn square Asc in RA within minutes - the ecliptical square is 6°, which is way too wide - and the person is arguably one of the least Saturnian people I know in terms of approach to life and basic values. Other examples are similar.

I could argue that my Sun square local Vx in LA (in RA) is valid (orb 06'), in a similar way to Sun being exactly on Antivertex in New York City is meaningful; but that would be an outlier example. Most that I have seen are not defensible as contacts, so I'm more inclined to think that other things in my chart explain the same phenomena.

This is important because the point on the ecliptic that marks the square in RA to Asc or Vx has nothing there. There is no intersection, no independent astronomical measurement there. It would be an aspect, not a new point; and the failure of these aspects is consistent with my overall sense that aspects to angles are not valid because angles are positions, not objects.

So... no, I don't think there is a Third Set of angles.

What About the Eastpoint
The point in the horoscope that we call the Eastpoint is a special case. While the longitude of the Eastpoint (intersection of horizon and prime vertical on the eastern half of the chart) is the square to MC in longitude, this point that we place in our charts is not square MC exactly. Instead, it is the point of the ecliptic that is exactly square MC in right ascension (along the equator). How it differs from RA squares to Ascendant and Vertex is that there is really something there. That is, the square to MC along the equator is also exactly the same as the intersection of the horizon and prime vertical. It is really a point that squares MC in three separate circles: 90° from the meridian in azimuth along the horizon, 90° from meridian in prime vertical longitude, and 90° from meridian in right ascension (along the equator). This puts it in a class of its own! - And the way we use it is not as an ecliptical point but, rather as an inference - a hint - of where a planet would be when it squares MC in RA. We always go back and check the contact in RA.

In a simpler world, I'd like to ignore it, but it's too compelling and inescapable a point. Our work in Sidereal Mundane Astrology alone has confirmed it hundreds of times over. We can't really get along without it, so it's good to observe that it has a highly distinctive astronomical importance.

That brings the number of viable points to 9 pairs, although the last one, despite its unique characteristics, is really one of the prior pairs identified in Set 2. Notice that every "angle" mentioned here is formed by a single intersection, but Eastpoint-Westpoint are formed by three different intersections that are identical: horizon-PV, horizon-equator, and PV-equator.

What Marks Completion?
To see if I'm missing anything, let's list all possible intersections of five great circles, and see if we have accounted for each of them. The five great circles under consideration are: horizon, meridian, prime vertical, ecliptic, equator

Horizon x Meridian: Northpoint-Southpoint
Horizon x Prime Vertical: Eastpoint-Westpoint
Horizon x Ecliptic: Ascendant-Descendant
Horizon x Equator: Eastpoint-Westpoint
Meridian x Prime Vertical: Zenith-Nadir
Meridian x Ecliptic: Midheaven-Lower Heaven
Meridian x Equator: Midequator [see below]
Prime Vertical x Ecliptic: Vertex-Antivertex
Prime Vertical x Equator: Eastpoint-Westpoint
Ecliptic x Equator: Vernal & Autumnal Equinoxes

Of these 10 pairs of intersections of these five great circles only one is not already included in the angle sets I've outlined above (not counting the equinoxes, which have their own distinction). It is the point where the meridian intersects the equator. It is tempting to simply subsume this into the Midheaven, but it isn't quite the same, e.g., it wouldn't have the same longitude. We should at least pause to consider what this could mean.

The point already has a name. It is the Midequator, the 10th cusp of the Morinus house system. What makes it intriguing is that it is the exact ecliptical square to the Eastpoint, i.e., the "Eastpoint" we put on the chart, which is the ecliptical marker of the square to MC in RA. If indeed valid, it gives an argument that "squares to the Eastpoint" would be valid, and that these should be taken ecliptically. That is, mathematically, the ME falls more in the category of the Zenith-Nadir.

OK, for a coherent system, we need to start investigating the value of very precise squares to Eastpoint, i.e., conjunctions with the Midequator and its opposite. Logic doesn't always produce the right conclusion, but it's a damn fine place to start, so we have to consider it.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

SteveS
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by SteveS » Sat Jun 24, 2017 3:30 pm

Excellent post Jim, lots of food for thought since our personal angles are the cornerstones of our charts. I have some questions and will get back later to this topic.

SteveS
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by SteveS » Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:33 am

Jim wrote:
Of these 10 pairs of intersections of these five great circles only one is not already included in the angle sets I've outlined above (not counting the equinoxes, which have their own distinction). It is the point where the meridian intersects the equator. It is tempting to simply subsume this into the Midheaven, but it isn't quite the same, e.g., it wouldn't have the same longitude. We should at least pause to consider what this could mean.
The point already has a name. It is the Midequator, the 10th cusp of the Morinus house system. What makes it intriguing is that it is the exact ecliptical square to the Eastpoint, i.e., the "Eastpoint" we put on the chart, which is the ecliptical marker of the square to MC in RA. If indeed valid, it gives an argument that "squares to the Eastpoint" would be valid, and that these should be taken ecliptically. That is, mathematically, the ME falls more in the category of the Zenith-Nadir.
OK, for a coherent system, we need to start investigating the value of very precise squares to Eastpoint, i.e., conjunctions with the Midequator and its opposite. Logic doesn't always produce the right conclusion, but it's a damn fine place to start, so we have to consider it.
Question: Is there a simple way with SF do determine if planets are in Paran formation to the EP-WP- Midequator axis, using a 4 minute orb (1 degree) with Sidereal Time?

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5565
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by Jim Eshelman » Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:44 am

No. Offhand, I can't even think of a hard way.

Wait, you mean in a single chart, like a birth chart? From visual inspection, just look at the Reports page and compare the EP Right Ascension to that of the planets, and then look for ecliptical squares to EP for the ME.

The ME contact is always going to be the ecliptical square to EP, and there are a lot of ways to tabulate that. But not EP. You could do a Z-Analogue RA chart and see aspects of planets to EP (notice EP and MC will always be square in that analogue framework), but that seems harder than just looking at the Reports sheet.

To answer a question you might have meant: No, there is not a way to see EP contacts and ME contacts on the same wheel at the same time.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5565
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by Jim Eshelman » Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:18 am

I should add, for clarification, that I haven't seen any evidence in actual charts of the Midequator being important. That's why I suggested we need to pa attention and watch it (and I think SMA is a promising way to do that, since we have no issue of accurate birth times or event times). I've known about the ME for decades from all the Lyndoe articles I devoured, but never put much stock in it or saw an example so compelling it made me stop ad swoon. It's quite hard to filter it out from broader MC effects, but they often are far enough apart that precision techniques like the CapQ often have them distinguished.

I just flipped through a couple of chart collections I have and, first, there are so few ME contacts that I had little to examine and, when I did, nothing jumped out. Planets don't seem to be magnetized toward that spot in contrast to the MC, for example. But these flip-throughs aren't what we really need so, for my part, as I'm recalculating and reexamining every chart of every event in SMA against the methods outlined in "Stretching the System," I'm going to watch for precision ME contacts as well.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

SteveS
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by SteveS » Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:21 am

OK, I see something that I think has great relevance to parts of your topic here, pertaining first to the ME and second to your words: “The ecliptic longitudes of Northpoint & Southpoint (horizon meets meridian) are ecliptic squares to Vertex/Antivertex.”
Check my senior thought process pertaining to: Boyd’s 11:00 AM LMT July 6, 1775 US Chart.
First, the ME with Boyd’s DC 1941 SSR: Boyd’s SSR Sun falls 1,26 cnj 1941 SSR ME:
http://imgur.com/a/K57AM
Note SSR Mars 1,18 oppose n. Saturn. Also n. Vx partile cnj n. EP Question: How in the hell can we determine if this SSR Mars oppose n. Saturn, could be in Paran to the n. cnj of Vx-Ep???
Second: Oct 10, 1941 DC QSSR: Note QSSR partile Sun-Mars 180 falling on the Northpoint-Southpoint axis, and falling close to DC’s 1941 SSR EP-WP axis. Again, how the hell do we determine if this partile 180 QSSR Sun-Mars is paran to the NP-SP axis, and if paran to DC’s 1941 SSR EP-WP axis???
http://imgur.com/a/yCT31

SteveS
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by SteveS » Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:39 am

Jim, I made an error in wording in my second issue point and have gone back and correctly edited the words of Mars-Saturn to Sun-Mars.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5565
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by Jim Eshelman » Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:03 am

Steve, I won't be around a computer most of today. I'll check this when I can.

"Paran" won't apply to most of these cases, but you could refer to "co-angularity.” It isn't a paran because, for one thing, there is no right angle between Eastpoint and some of these other planes.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

SteveS
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by SteveS » Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:10 am

Trying to understand these other ecliptical points with the intersections of these circles, but obviously I don't understand fully. Using an example: When t. Sun partile 180 t. Mars falling very close to the EP-WP axis of a prior return chart, in this case the 1941 SSR EP-WP axis, are you saying--there is no way we can determined if this Sun-Mars 180 is an actual 1 degree Paran? In this case the Sun would have no declination but what about the declination for t. Mars for determining a possible Paran?

User avatar
Jupiter Sets at Dawn
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1986
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 7:03 pm

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by Jupiter Sets at Dawn » Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:18 pm

SteveS wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:10 am
are you saying--there is no way we can determined if this Sun-Mars 180 is an actual 1 degree Paran? In this case the Sun would have no declination but what about the declination for t. Mars for determining a possible Paran?
No, he's saying there's no easy way to determine this using Solar Fire, which is the question you asked.

But you can still draw up a speculum using the instructions Fagan gives in the Primer and the calculator program that comes with Windows. You can get the necessary values from Solar Fire. Or you can use Riyal, which is still free.

From the Riyal instructions:
THE SPECULUM: The speculum includes 2 semiarcs. The first is the actual one, and in parenthesis is given its complement. Then follows a letter, “N” meaning “nocturnal” and “D” meaning diurnal, which indicates whether the object is above or below the horizon. The second column after the meridian distance is the normalized or "oblique" distance. A second speculum in the next display includes right ascension, ascensional difference, oblique ascension or descension, and the pole of the planet according to the Topocentric system.

The third page of the Speculum displays the azimuths and altitudes, plus three aditional columns showing the planetary positions IN MUNDO according to the house system the program is working with at the moment, followed by the corresponding "oblique" zodiacal longitude (=the projection of the mundo position to the ecliptic) and the ordinary zodiacal longitude which is shown for comparison. For clarity the mundo positions are shown in their zodiacal equivalents, Aries corresponding to the first house, Capricorn to the tenth, etc.

SteveS
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by SteveS » Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:23 pm

8-) Thanks JSAD, I will attempt to mentally work my way through this task for my learning curve.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5565
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by Jim Eshelman » Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:31 pm

I'm home for an hour or so before we go hit the road (we're producing a wine event for a birthday party in Camarillo tonight), so I'll take a crack at answering these.
SteveS wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:21 am
Check my senior thought process pertaining to: Boyd’s 11:00 AM LMT July 6, 1775 US Chart.
First, the ME with Boyd’s DC 1941 SSR: Boyd’s SSR Sun falls 1,26 cnj 1941 SSR ME
My calculations and your sample chart show EP 21°14' Pisces, so ME is 21°14' Sagittarius. Yes, Sun is 1°26;' from opposite this. (It's hard to get great, meaningful examples of these, since Sun (like Mars) is foreground anyway but, going with your example: Yes.)
Note SSR Mars 1,18 oppose n. Saturn.
Yes. Straightforward foreground ecliptical aspect.
How in the hell can we determine if this SSR Mars oppose n. Saturn, could be in Paran to the n. cnj of Vx-Ep???
First, some language issues so we don't trip over it. I wouldn't call this (or anything involving those angles) a paran. Parans only involve the meridian and horizon. Since so many of our best examples involve other angles, I started, a few years back, calling these co-angularities, and mostly purged the word "paran" from my usage.

I think what you mean, though, is: How do we tell if these two planets are (1) both adequately close to an angle and (2) form some kind of aspect with each other.

We already know that this is a perfectly fine ecliptical opposition < 2°, with both planets foreground (Mars is about 5° above Ascendant), so we may not need more; but, to answer your question, I'll continue.

First: DON'T COUNT ASPECTS BETWEEN VERTEX AND EASTPOINT. THEY'RE NONSENSE. THERE'S NOTHING TO IT. (Besides, the Eastpoint is always precisely on the Prime Vertical so, in at least one plane of measurement, they're always 0°00' apart.)

(Later:) I'm trying to reconstruct exactly what paran you're after, and I can't make it out. Are you looking for something between Mars and Saturn? As mentioned, with the ecliptical aspect there's no need for anything more. Also, since one is natal and one is transiting, and there is 166 years between them (with over 2° of precession accrued in the interim), we have no tools available to even begin to calculate this. (It can be calculated, but with tools I've never had on a computer, only on my old HP calculate in the late '70s. I used to have all the formulae memorized, but after 30-40 years I've forgotten them, though Derek or somebody could probably provide them if I asked nicely.)

What I can give you is this: Mars' RA puts it 1°41' from SSR EP. It's azimuth in the SSR is 89°59', which puts it 0°01' from Antivertex. I can't give you the same thing for Saturn because of the precessional separation, though I can tell you that Saturn is on EP, WP, MC, or IC when the angle is 12°22' Virgo (from the "Mundane Data Large" page), so it's not near that angle.
Second: Oct 10, 1941 DC QSSR: Note QSSR partile Sun-Mars 180 falling on the Northpoint-Southpoint axis, and falling close to DC’s 1941 SSR EP-WP axis.
The last detail is irrelevant - astrologically meaningless IMHO - but let's go with the rest. Yes, there is an ecliptical opposition 0°18', and they are both within 1° of NP-SP axis.
Again, how the hell do we determine if this partile 180 QSSR Sun-Mars is paran to the NP-SP axis
I don't understand the question. I don't know what "paran to the NP-SP axis" means. The two planets are actually ON the NP-SP axis. These are taken purely ecliptically. Since Vertex is 23°20' Sagittarius, the Northpoint is 23°20' Virgo, and Sun is 0°40' from this. Southpoint is 23°20' Pisces, and Mars is 0°22' from this. Sun and Mars could be considered "paran" if you are using paran as a synonym for co-angularity. (It can't be a paran because neither is on the horizon or meridian.)

The problem here is a language problem. You keep talking about something paranning an angle. Nothing parans an angle; its position on the angle determines whether there is a paran.

]quote]and if paran to DC’s 1941 SSR EP-WP axis???
It isn't. Angles don't make aspects, and the angles of one return chart don't make aspects to angles of other return charts.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5565
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by Jim Eshelman » Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:33 pm

SteveS wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:10 am
When t. Sun partile 180 t. Mars falling very close to the EP-WP axis of a prior return chart, in this case the 1941 SSR EP-WP axis
It sounds like you are taking planets in the Quarti-solar as transiting (or otherwise aspecting) planets or angles of the SSR. I would never do this. They are separate frameworks.

I'd count the transit on October 10 as a transit for the day, since the SSR is always responsive to transits; but this wouldn't be part of the Quarti.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

SteveS
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by SteveS » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:18 pm

Thanks so much Jim. I now have a better understanding. In my mind I have respect for all auxiliary angles, and am frustrated because we don’t have the computer tools for quick and east sight to know the actual distance of a planet to any auxiliary angle. :(

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5565
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by Jim Eshelman » Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:11 pm

SteveS wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:18 pm
Thanks so much Jim. I now have a better understanding. In my mind I have respect for all auxiliary angles, and am frustrated because we don’t have the computer tools for quick and east sight to know the actual distance of a planet to any auxiliary angle. :(
Well, that part we can do, at least mostly.

Squares to Asc, MC, and Vx are taken in ecliptic longitude.

Contacts to EP-WP are taken in RA. This is right on the Reports page of a chart.

Contacts to Vx-Antivertex are probably best measured in azimuth, which is also on the Reports page.

But what I thought you were asking about before is measuring aspects between planets on angles. Some of them don't form any. For example, if a planet is mundanely on the Vertex, it forms no aspects (arising out of that fact to planets on EP-WP, or square Ascendant. It only mundanely aspects planets on the horizon or meridian.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

SteveS
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by SteveS » Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:50 am

Thanks again Jim. Your topic has reminded my mind, we should always note when pairs of auxiliary angles with Return Charts follow your 'outstanding incident' teaching:
It is when angularity and aspect partility coincide that outstanding incidents are most likely to come about.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5565
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by Jim Eshelman » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:15 am

That presumes the auxiliary are valid at the same level. So far, besides the horizon (Asc/Dsc) and meridian (MC/IC), only the Eastpoint axis has shown itself in that category or reliability and external manifestation.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

SteveS
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by SteveS » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:43 am

Jim wrote:
That presumes the auxiliary are valid at the same level. So far, besides the horizon (Asc/Dsc) and meridian (MC/IC), only the Eastpoint axis has shown itself in that category or reliability and external manifestation.
Got it, thanks.

SteveS
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by SteveS » Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:02 am

Jim, does your mind have an explanation WHY the EP/WP stands out more prevalent with prominent planetary symbolism verses the other auxiliary angles?

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5565
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by Jim Eshelman » Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:58 am

SteveS wrote:
Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:02 am
Jim, does your mind have an explanation WHY the EP/WP stands out more prevalent with prominent planetary symbolism verses the other auxiliary angles?
Pretty much, yes.

First: They don't stand out more than Zenith/Nadir (squares to Ascendant.). They seem the equivalent, i.e., both are the effective squares to primary angles.

EP/WP are squares to MC in RA, and seem to be the real, or primary, "squares to MC," rather than the ecliptical ones. In casual observation and in two small pilots, I've been able to confirm two things: (1) Ecliptical squares to MC are also valid. (2) Orbs on ecliptical squares to MC are narrower than EP/WP (equatorial squares to MC). The former run 1-2°, the latter 2-3°. This has been a consistent finding so far. Why this distinction? Probably MC is more intrinsically connected to the equator (there are good reasons for this inherent to its structure), so I'm not too worried about that distinction.

Second: The means that the only other auxiliary angles to consider are the Vertex and others related to it (Vx, AV, NP, SP). Your question, therefore, paraphrases to, "Does your mind have an explanation for why Vertex-rooted points stand out as less prevalent with prominent planetary symbolism vs. the other auxiliary angles?" And yes, this is quite easy to see. Two points on this:

Point 1: The important, primary astrological function of angularity (foregroundness) is measured along the prime vertical. The whole phenomenon is anchored in the meridian (MC-IC, and secondarily EP-WP) and horizon (Asc-Dsc, and secondarily Z & N) against the measuring frame of the PV. That means that there is no "angularity" as such (no foreground vs. background) characteristic intrinsic to the prime vertical. Vertex and its related points have no connection to the things we normally think of as "angularity" (expressiveness).

Point 2: They obviously have other significance, though - at least in some astrological contexts such as natal charts. This suggests that there is a qualitative difference rather than a quantitative (strength) difference, and this theory matches observation (they feel very, very different than truly angular planets.


Having answered your question, I want to add two asides that interest me.

First: Though I made a theoretical case for the Midequator above, it's only theoretical, and evidence has yet to impress me. As I'm working on a separate SMA project right now that has me recalculating and reexamining every solar and lunar ingress connected to the current event catalogue (something over 2,000 charts altogether), I'm looking at the Midequator in passing. (I started in the fires, where I'm presently working.) So far, there are very few contacts to ME at all, and the few I've seen are as likely to be wrong symbolism as right symbolism. I consider the jury still out, and suggest we all monitor and report on these contacts, but wanted to say that what I wrote above is not an endorsement. It may be that the thesis above simplifies by dropping out the celestial equator as one of the great circles in the mix.

Second: In looking at these angles from a theoretical way to organize their interpretations, there are two obvious models. One would have the Southpoint and Northpoint being part of the "Vertex family," because they are the north and south ("4th house" and "10th house") expressions of points tied to the Vertex set. The other theory is to think of them as not connected to the Vertex or prime vertical, but as intersections of the other two major great circles, the horizon and the meridian. (Mathematically, this is what they are.) It seems, though, that the first theory is better - it organizes theory in a way that produces correct conclusions.

This former theory is the one behind the book on angles that I wrote half of in the early '80s. It spoke of 12 angles - four families, rooted in the MC, Asc, and Vx, respectively i.e., in the meridian, horizon, and prime vertical), and each family have an angle themed to what astrology has historically called 1st house, 4th house, 7th house, and 10th house (I called each of these themings an ethos). The presentation (and what I still consider to be correct) is that the primary importance of angles is angularity - undifferentiated (at least where horizon and meridian are concerned), e.g., a closely angular Mars means a fundamentally martial character regardless of the specific angle. However, there is a secondary expression of tending to express more in one direction than another so that, e.g., all the "7th house ethos" angles have a contra-self theming that shows in such contexts as relationships and death (I grossly simplify, but you can get the point). Thus, Descendant expresses the western ethos in a way that is distinctive to what Ascendant or the Horizon means, Westpoint expresses it in a way that is distinctive to what Midheaven or the Meridian means, and Vertex expresses it in a way that is distinctive to what Vertex-family or the Prime Vertical means.

This model - linking, as it does, Southpoint and Northpoint to the Vertex Family - continues to show merit, in contrast to the alternative theory of considering Southpoint and Northpoint distinctive of an intersection of the themes of the horizon and meridian (which mathematically form them).

FWIW.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

SteveS
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by SteveS » Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:23 am

Jim wrote:
FWIW.
Thanks Jim, as usual, worth a-lot to me.

SteveS
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by SteveS » Thu Jun 29, 2017 2:55 am

Jim, pertaining to the rare times when the Vx axis is partile cnj the EP/WP axis, as well as the Asc/Dsc axis, do you consider this as offering a TIME when there is much more angular potency with planets cnj this type rare situation? Does a cnj lineament of these three axis happen once every year?

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5565
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu Jun 29, 2017 6:22 am

SteveS wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 2:55 am
Jim, pertaining to the rare times when the Vx axis is partile cnj the EP/WP axis, as well as the Asc/Dsc axis, do you consider this as offering a TIME when there is much more angular potency with planets cnj this type rare situation? Does a cnj lineament of these three axis happen once every year?
These three are going to be in alignment whenever the equinoxes are on Asc-Dsc, meaning twice a day (or, in a quotidian system, twice a year). It isn't rare at all.

No, I have no reason to think there is any more angular potential for expression. The only argument for this would be if we held that a planet gets stronger if it contacts more than one angle at a time, and I've seen nothing to suggest this. Whichever angle a planet is closest to determines how strong it is. Just take the one contact that is strongest - you can't get more expressive than 100% :)
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

SteveS
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by SteveS » Thu Jun 29, 2017 6:45 am

It isn't rare at all.
Would it not be somewhat rare if this happened at the exact time of a Cap/Can solar for an important geographic location, or for a SSR for a person? In your elaborate research work, do you recall ever seeing a Cap/Can solar or SSR where the daily timing of this possibility has happened?

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5565
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Why some "angles" and not others?

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:03 am

Yes, I've seen it dozens to hundreds of times. The exact, to the minute convergence occurs twice per day. To the nearest degree, that means one chart in every 90 has it.

I don't think it means anything. My birth chart btw is nearly there, being only about three degrees on the angles from the perfect spot. There is no meaningful way to interpret my Moon being on Vertex or even (widely) in Westpoint, because my Moon is already setting. There's nothing new to add from Tue others.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest