Eris

[Veronica]

James,

Did you know that women talk and use tens of thousands of words a day? Tens of thousands of blah blah blah blah, who knows what exactly but it is almost like endless prattle at times being around women who basically talk nonstop all day. Everyday.

Men, supposedly use about 10,000.
Who knows what is going on inside the Male mind most of the time? It's like pulling teeth sometimes to get a conversation.

I applaud you for putting conscientious action into communicating more. I know it so hard to do, to find words, to relate experiences and intangible things, I try and try and try and fail and fail and fail. But I keep trying.
I hope you do too.

[Jim Eshelman]

Based on the work above, I've settled for now on the following provisional interpretation of natal Venus-Eris aspects:

Sexuality is unusually free from shame. Finds flowering or fertility in chaos. When sexually involved, expresses sexuality with unusual “no holding back” freedom. Indifferent to others’ or society's rules: Faithful to their own moral rules, while entirely free from judging, shaming, or condemning others’ choices (willing to be disruptor). Discloses their inner, intimate self in every act. (Sees a personal connection as one detail in a larger array.)

[Veronica]

A few weeks ago when my sister was at death's door I found myself in a situation in which my sisters daughter was angry at me and my sister.

I realized I had never been more afraid of a confrontation in my life. No one scares me more when upset then my niece and I love her to pieces.

My niece is a nurse. My father calls her nurse Ratchet.
She is the most loving capable encouraging and self assured person I have ever met. She is a lady and will not lower herself under any circumstances. You can either rise to her level or not, she truly does not bother with stupidity or laziness.
She excelled in school and has a brilliant mind capable of deep problem solving and seeing others perspectives.
I am truly blessed to have her in my life and for the love and support she has shown me.

After reading this thread I knew that she must have Eris strong in her chart and knowing how slow Eris is I knew from her birthdate it was probably conjunct her Sun.

The interesting thing is that I never knew what time she was born, and so when I drew up her chart I had to feel her out in a way to try and surmise the time. After some deep feelings and thinking I came up with 9am ish.

My Astrology has gotten better because yesterday when I was going through paperwork my dad had in the barn I found her hospital tag.

I'd like to introduce to you my most beloved LB, and if you have any fears or worries about the future, let me tell you that this little bit of StarShine is busting heads and tearing down ugliness and living and laughing and loving inspite of it all

LB
Born April 4th 1979 8:52 am Rochester NY

[Jim Eshelman]

Sun 19°45' Pisces
Eris 19°50' Pisces
Moon 21°34' Gemini

Way to go!

[SteveS]

[Danica]

Sexuality is unusually free from shame. Finds flowering or fertility in chaos. When sexually involved, expresses sexuality with unusual “no holding back” freedom. Indifferent to others’ or society's rules: Faithful to their own moral rules, while entirely free from judging, shaming, or condemning others’ choices (willing to be disruptor). Discloses their inner, intimate self in every act. (Sees a personal connection as one detail in a larger array.)

There’s an example of Venus-Eris that I’ve had the unjoyous fortune to meet get to know during the previous year, which is quite the opposite from this description! The orb (eclipto) of Ve sq Er is 39’; Ve herself is in Gemini and conj Sun, orb 3*05’ A, and Mars is conj Sun 2*52’ - but far away to be in orb with Ve and Er too; Luna is in Leo; the birth time I received is within an hour of exactitude, so not exactly sure about the precise details of the rest of the picture.
She’s sexually and emotionally constipated; this is shown in her relationships with the closest people, lack of trust and openness about own authentic feelings and the Venusian seems entirely projected onto the environment in a form that presents it to self as Dangerous, monstrous, needs-be-controlled-and-suppressed. Heavy early-adulthood trauma in intimate relationship;
has grown to become a Hitler supporter; an actual *racist* net-plotting local aspiring “mamman”-to-be, operating within the culture-building of the local Communities she’s managing, of the young generation of artists and creative-entrepreneurs of LA !


... maybe there’s a polarity-switch tendency, of an extreme-in-expression or a-seeming-total-distortion/lack-thereof, of a principle in relation/aspect with Eris? ... with Gemini here, the polarization as such, as theme, is also emphasized; and Mars with the Sun colors the whole nativity quite differently than if this was a primarily-Venusian or Venusian-only picture...

[Jim Eshelman]

Data?

[Danica]

Data?

Are you asking for birth-data, or events?
For the first, privately sent to you (see messenger), and will do same to other members who ask, doesn’t feel fitting to share here openly.

If you’re asking for more details on events, I’d have to go through diaries, let me know.

[Jim Eshelman]

Mozart, whose chart is already dominated by Uranus and Pluto, was also an Eris fellow. Eris was partile conjunct his partile Moon-Pluto conjunction. It was also 1°28' from his IC, making it slightly closer to an angle than Uranus.

Additionally, Oprah Winfrey was born with Eris 0°30' from IC (something not evident except in the mundoscope).

[mikestar13]

On the topic of Venus-Eris, I think I have some relevant experience, since in my nativity Eris conjoins Venus within half a degree (also conjuct the Sun and sextile rising Mars in Taurus, which complicates the picture). There has always been chaos in my romantic/sexual relationships. There is chaos now, but by God's grace with Terry it is external circumstance and not the relationship dynamic itself (a pleasing reversal of my usual pattern).

I have been always been reliably monogamous on the one hand, and not just a question of values: cheating, threesomes, orgies, ... just don't float my boat. My natural bent is to be laser focused on my current relationship, be it for the night or a two decade marriage.

On the other hand, when I'm not committed to someone, pretty much I never met a woman I didn't want (barring cases of a woman so egregiously ugly I question if she's human or so palpably evil that it's oozing from her pores). In the context of the above, there is essentially nothing I won't at least try sexually. (For the record, barring any degree of non-consensual--I consider that grossly immoral and also have never even fantasized about it).

Yet on the third hand, while I don't mind and now and then have enjoyed the kinkier things, I don't miss them or crave them. Plain vanilla if in semi reasonable quality and quantity never leaves me even slightly unsatisfied even for years at a time.

Better astrologers than me need to figure out the contradictions in the above, but the chaotic pull in different directions seems very Eris to me.

[Venus_Daily]

I know this isn't the SSR forum, but I went back and looked over my SSR charts, and I had Eris prominent in a lot of my charts from 2011-2017 when my mother had her stroke. In 2018, obviously, the trend stop, and this is the point when I started seeing a different endocrinologist and addressed a lot of the physiological issues I had been having due to being hypopituitary, and the biggest thing that really helped was addressing a severe Vitamin D and magnesium deficiency I had. Sorry if I derailed the thread. I just didn't feel in control of anything during this time.

[Jim Eshelman]

Eris is far off the horizon so it doesn't fall on angles often where it seems to by longitude. Here is what I found of transiting Eris in those years.

2011: 9°07' below Asc, very widely foreground. (Saturn on Dsc was the main factor.)

2012: 5°29' from MC, moderately foreground. The most important thing was Venus exactly on Asc. However, by transit Eris was crossing SSR MC all year.

2013: 1°01' from Dsc - very strong, the strongest thing in the chart (and opposite Venus across the horizon).

2014: 2°46' from IC - quite close. But Pluto half a degree from Ascendant was the strongest thing.

2015: 0°19' from Asc. The closest of the set, and the only transiting planet of great significance in the chart.

2016: 4°52' off MC, but intensified by close opposition (in mundo) by Moon. Probably the second strongest year.

2017: 5°40' from Dsc, The most important thing that year was Uranus 0°02' from Dsc.

[Venus_Daily]

Does this symbolize that Eris has some influence in our lives through transits and returns? It does seem to echo other harsh influences. It's going to be pretty interested to see Eris' transit into Aries around 2024. Hope it doesn't symbolize war.

[Jim Eshelman]

Does this symbolize that Eris has some influence in our lives through transits and returns? It does seem to echo other harsh influences. It's going to be pretty interested to see Eris' transit into Aries around 2024. Hope it doesn't symbolize war.

It isn't likely, since Eris' extremely long, elongated orbit places it in Aries a very long time.

Eris first enters Aries in June 2023 and, after five retrograde cycles back into Pisces, settles in for the long-run in February 2028. It remains in Aries full-time until (get ready) 2136 - 108 years later - before it first sets foot in Taurus. It then retrogrades back and forth between the two constellations until it fully settles into Taurus in 2140.

Eris first entered Pisces (for the current cycle) in May 1901 and has been there full-time since 1905.

We can't easily study its prior behavior in the signs since it's orbit appears to be 559 years long. That means it was last in Pisces 1343-1469 (full-time during 1347-1464). You could study that century-plus to see how it compares to the years since 1905. It's last passage through Aries was 1464-1581 (being there full-time 1469-1578).

It's interesting, but perhaps coincidental, that the Black Death (bubonic plague) ravaged Europe 1346-53, the earliest years of Eris in Pisces; and we've had two gigantic world pandemics during the current passage. The 15th century, over half of which had Eris in Pisces and the other half in Aries, was the dawning of the Renaissance, the fall of Constantinople and eastern empire it governed; so I'm sure there is one or more of the Crusades in one of these two periods along with the intentional effort by Europe to dismantle the Islamic world. (I haven't looked it up yet.) Eris in Aries marked Columbus' voyage and the opening up of half the planet to the other half in the greatest period of exploration in history (which, however, sounds more Piscian to me).

Under the Eris in Pisces period - let's look at the exploration - Henry the Navigator led Portugal's great explorations. Joan of Arc led her campaign and suffered her punishment at the end (religious wars were quite popular). The Aztecs rose to become the dominant force and culture in Central America and the Incas build Machu Picchu. In the last years of the passage, Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire fell. At about the same time, the Hundred Years War ended (I guess this ran more or less the full length of Eris in Pisces) with decisive French victory over England.

There continued to be wars with Eris in Aries, though these were not of the scope and grandeur of the Pisces period. The early ones, at least, were more about shifting rulership and rotating dynasties. Of course, Columbus' voyage is a turning point in 1492, along with the concurrent expulsion of all Jews from Spain; other significant European explorers made their historic, consequential journeys to America.

Most of the 16th Century had Eris in Aries. The Italian Renaissance was in full force. Europe's march into the Americas began to surge. Copernicus and Brahe began to dismantle religion-based old models of the universe and create modern celestial mechanics. The Protestant Reformation began, with permanent, transformative effect on Europe. Looking at this, it suggests Eris in Aries could be quite remarkable and exciting!

It was the time of Da Vinci and Michelangelo, of Martin Luther and Henry VIII, of Columbus, de Soto, and Magellan (but also the savagery - some might say genocide - of Cortez and Pizarro). It included the rising into power of Queen Elizabeth I in 1558, and the first half of the Elizabethan Era. (The half that most fed the flourishing of immortal writing and art fell under Eris in Taurus.)

As it matured, this period became a time of majestic monarchs around the world - Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, the Khans in China, Ivan the Terrible in Russia, Islamic rulers spreading as far as Indonesia, just to name the most obvious. It was the era of Catherine de Medici.

Eris' time in the last sign of the zodiac ended with the last year of the Julian Calendar, for its successor, the Gregorian Calendar, was instituted the following year. With Eris in Taurus, Denmark built the world's first theme park in 1583 , and the era of Marlowe and Shakespeare began to unfold.

[Jim Eshelman]

At the moment the first plane hit the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, 8:46 AM EDT, 40N42'42", 74W00'45", Mercury and Eris were both precisely angular and in 0°08' mundane opposition.

Mercury 0°29' below Asc
Eris 0°21' above Dsc

[SteveS]

Jim noted:

Mercury 0°29' below Asc
Eris 0°21' above Dsc

Impressive!

[Mike]

Some thoughts from a non-Eris native who has it acutely foreground in California, and is now paying attention to that...

Here in San Diego County, my natal Eris is 1º18' past MC; in Los Angeles it's even closer, at 0º23' before MC. In both cases, it becomes my most angular planet, though Mercury and Venus are both quite close to Westpoint and Dsc, respectively.

Stef and I were talking about it, and she had a really good articulation of what I was feeling - it sort of feels like the "anti-OCD planet."

I do have OCD in the clinical sense, and beyond that I am a person who really prefers planning over spontaneity; uncertainty leads to a lot of anxiety for me.
When I've been in California, even before I was paying attention to Eris, I have noticed that I care a lot less about what kind of trajectory I'm on, and am content to just ride the waves of whatever is happening. I used to think that was my psyche reacting to the presence of Venus, since it's background in my natal chart, but now I am thinking that this is much more of an Eris experience.

My very crude and early articulation of the way it feels is: "not recognizing any difference in importance between different possibilities; equally content with whatever ends up happening. Extra difficulty with plotting out a course of action in advance, and perhaps with focusing in general."

[Jim Eshelman]

This is fascinating.

[Jim Eshelman]

Einstein remains one of the most interesting examples to revisit occasionally regarding Eris (and, for that matter, Sedna). At a glance, his horoscope looks like Eris totally dominates, closely conjunct Midheaven. In fact, it doesn't do that: Due to its extreme latitude, at his higher-latitude birth in Germany, Eris (which ecliptically seems to be on MC) is several degrees ABOVE ASCENDANT. It does, however, still stand out in his chart for a very tight square with Moon.

19°47' Aqu - MC
21°28' Sco - Moon [1°28' from WP-a]
21°48' Aqu - Eris [6°05' above Asc!]

Sedna is interesting because it ties into Einstein's famous Mercury-Saturn conjunction. Now, Mercury conjunct Saturn already is a major, positive mark of Einstein's chart: It's not usually a negative aspect and does show in significant mathematicians and, in particular, people who have helped define how the universe works mechanically (Copernicus, Brahe, Newton). In Pisces, it takes on Einstein's physical window of physics. But, even though it's good enough on its own, Sedna adds a new dimension:

9°48' Pis - Sedna
10°05' Pis - Mercury
11°08' Pis - Saturn

I stumbled on this while revisiting Einstein's chart to see if his Novien any further insight on his Mercury patterns and, indeed, it does. The lesser of two things is that his natal Mercury-Saturn conjunction is atop his Novien Jupiter (9°50' Pisces) and Neptune (13°20' Sagittarius), reinforcing the almost metaphysical scope of his physics (which we already see from the nativity) and his academic success (r Mercury on N Jupiter 15'). But even more interesting is that natal Pluto (1°40' Taurus) squares his Novien Mercury (0°47') within 0°53'.

There are so many ways that this relatively simple nativity is extraordinary.

PS - Mercury-Saturn is also quite common for high impact astrologers, which is an interesting link between astronomers that show us how the universe works and astrologers that show us how the universe works in our lives. Some of these include Alan Leo, Llewellyn George, Dane Rudhyar, Margaret Hone, Reinhold Ebertin, myself, Matthew Quellas (and, of course, Copernicus, Brahe, and Newton).

[mikestar13]

Einstein's chart is indeed a great example of Eris and Sedna. Also an illustration of the importance of mundane position. At least in this case an astrologer who only considered longitude would be coincidentally right that Eris is foreground. But it doesn't require much imagination to envision a case where Eris is dead exact on the Midheaven while located in the remotest background mundanely.

[Danica]

There are so many ways that this relatively simple nativity is extraordinary.

I think that where the true genius of this nativity lies is a peculiar social-emotional capacity of sensitivity and adaptivity to conditions in the environment, with extraordinary ability to (in a fiercely-hungry manner!) absorb from it what's the current personal need, and "make it own food": this is a Pisces Sun, Scorpio Moon, with the Sun itself being oct Neptune (38') ans sq Mars (1*43' M), and the Moon sq Eris (19') and sq Uranus (55' M).
Sedna so tight with his Mercury-Saturn conjunction does indeed give additional information of value, in this regard; although closely conjunct both, Sedna cnj Mercury is only 16' wide, being the strongest-by-orb natal aspect of the chart; the whole picture of the core factors of this natal depicts someone with an instinct to find themselves attached-to, or in-proximity, or adjacent to an authentic authority, and to find best possible ways to use this kind of circumstances for their own greatest-benefit & establishing own position of power.

His biography clearly depicts this: a not exactly specialized or in a particular manner strongly defined world-path or Identity, someone highly capable of "wheeling and dealing", seeking their own path and wandering around just flowing with the tides (with all that Scorpio-Moon and Pisces-stellium charisma as it was) meets a true scientific genius of Mileva (12/19/1875, Titel, Serbia; my rectified time: 9:30 AM) and after a few years of consuming what this peculiar relationship has been offering, within a time-span of a few months comes up with "their own" original idea about the way to mathematically define the energy of a particle in a "rest state"! --- one merely needs to take a look at his annual tides, the larger transits to rx, and the Solar Arc processes for period 1896 - 1905 to see that it wasn't sooner than October 1904 when d Mercury entered orb to his r Moon, which was then followed by t Uranus coming to the natal trio Sedna-Mercury-Saturn starting in Jan 1905, that the indicators of important intellectual break-through come to appear (the thesis that outlined "his original ideas" on quantum theory was completed in March 1905). Seeing the synastry between him and Mileva (as well as looking into her own natal, and the tides and processes for the same period, 1896-1905) adds details to this whole picture that are quite illuminating!

[ODdOnLifeItself]

Re: "...not recognizing any difference in importance between different possibilities; equally content with whatever ends up happening."

Though under a spiritual basis, this fits me to a T. I have the feeling that lives are already lived in a sense (path-wise) and that we're merely experiencing it seemingly in real-time. Because of this, I have the feeling that we're always right where we are meant to be. For me, if I were to not get a job I was going for, it would be (to me) because the job wouldn't be right for me. I am just as content to not get the job as to get it. All things in life fall into this reasoning.

Re: "Extra difficulty with plotting out a course of action in advance, and perhaps with focusing in general."

Not sure about this one, but I do note (or let's say my wife has noted ) that it's better with me to know ahead of time what we need to do. If she has something on Wednesday, where a deviation will be necessary, she knows not to spring it on me later than Tuesday. Other elements of my chart, I believe, make this part of the "Eris understanding" seem not so on the mark.

In my natal, Eris is square the Sun (0° 14'), semisquare Mars ((0° 9') and inconjunct Neptune (0° 1'). [though I know the last aspect is generational]

In my epoch, Eris is opposite my Sun (1° 1'), inconjunct Venus (0° 43')...

I am a bit curious about transiting Eris, as well as major transits to Eris, though I haven't yet researched that element of it...

[Danica]

Roberto Assagioli had Mercury cnj Eris 14' (E), as well as Wilhelm Reich did (4*13' E - who also had it as his closest angular, 21' above DC, and partile (Ecl) sq Moon, if my birth hour rectification for him, 14:15h, is correct).

[Danica]

[-- posted previously w/o sufficient reflection; admins, please delete this --]

[Jim Eshelman]

Roberto Assagioli had Mercury cnj Eris 14' (E), as well as Wilhelm Reich did (4*13' E - who also had it as his closest angular, 21' above DC, and partile (Ecl) sq Moon, if my birth hour rectification for him, 14:15h, is correct).

This compares well to my current working definition of Mercury-Eris aspects:

Insight comes easily: Mind can manage vast arrays of data points, incorporating facts and evidence, leaping to significant, persistent success. (Seems intuitive at first impression, but actually pursues goals through persistent effort and skill rewarded by insight.) A sassy, often unbounded “think-for-oneself” way through life (may use shock tactics to prove they think and act on their own). Promiscuous: persistently casual, diverse, and indiscriminate in sexual variety...

[Jim Eshelman]

"Tricky Dick" had the Trickster as his most angular planet.

For so significant a figure in the last half of the 20th Century, there are surprisingly few things in Nixon's chart. He has nothing near an angle. He did have one ferociously powerful middleground aspect structure of Mercury, Mars, and Jupiter tightly conjoined and opposite Pluto which (rightfully) gets the most attention from astrologers.

But with the discovery of Eris, we find he has one closely angular planet: Eris is 1°50' from his Descendant. It's also rightly called an afflicted Eris with the following malefic-heavy aspects:

Code: Select all

Er Pi  F | tr Ne 01°04'    sx Sa 01°39'    sq Pl 02°49'    sq Ma 03°54'    
         | sq Me 04°10'    sq Ju 05°50'    sx Su 06°26'    sx Ur 06°51

In fact, Eris was 17' from the Saturn/Neptune midpoint.

[Soft Alpaca]

Planet is giving me Vermillion vibes.

[Jim Eshelman]

Planet is giving me Vermillion vibes.

What does Vermillion feel like to you?

[Soft Alpaca]

I guess it is a bit odd to apply a feeling to a color. I feel it's the 11% more toned red orange that just ignites something like the sense of entropy to me. In one form we have cinnabar explosive and can be made to be deadly (sharpened and already poisonous), but at the same time it's beautiful and the process that makes it is destructive and beautiful: but also contradictory because it's creating new (life, geography and minerals). In another form we have a dye made from what in large quantities is also again poisonous; cadmium.

When cinnabar was used for lipstick and it also killed you but it was thought to have health benefits.. all just very Eris (this is far deeper than my initial feeling I had to go into this a bit myself).

The spectrum of red waves point me to action and orange denotes to me surprise so there's also that.

[Mike]

...it sort of feels like the "anti-OCD planet."

My very crude and early articulation of the way it feels is: "not recognizing any difference in importance between different possibilities; equally content with whatever ends up happening. Extra difficulty with plotting out a course of action in advance, and perhaps with focusing in general."

Now that I live in a place where I have Eris partile conjunct MC, and have had some additional time to reflect on it... I'm starting to think of foreground Eris in these terms (or maybe a less crude and slightly later articulation):

• Experiences unity in multiplicity, by tending to not value one possibility or expression over another a priori. "Make no difference between any one thing and any other thing..."

• ...Therefore, has difficulty imagining how they'll feel once they have a certain experience.

• Also therefore, experiences difficulty in practical planning that requires a preferring a sequence of events. They have both difficulty rationalizing about planning, and less patience for engaging in planning.

• Once they actually do have an experience, other chart factors influence their response, but there's commonly additional surprise in their emotional responses, like: "wow, I love this, I can't believe I didn't expect that," or "wow, I hate this, I can't believe I didn't expect that." It's almost like they're disoriented by the practical necessity of having a particular experience, of being one thing and not other things.

• When making a decision on short notice, the tendency is to choose whatever occurs to them as the path of least resistance (or perhaps, the path of least analysis-and-valuation). Accordingly, previous decisions are often "out of sight, out of mind." It's not that they don't honor their word, it's that it mostly exists in the context in which it was made.

• Experienced by others as chaotic in a conventional sense. In their minds, they are just following out a path that seemed like a good idea at the time (see above). At their best, they are spontaneous and free-spirited; at their worst, they are disorganized and somewhat apathetic to consequences.

• Marked tendency to create catastrophes through poor planning (although "catastrophe" is relative, the idea is that someone involved, whether themselves or a loved one, considers the result "catastrophic.")

• Possibly a serial-interest kind of personality, like Sagittarius Suns? (Hard to tell from small sample size)

• Possibly strong long-term memory and weaker short-term memory? (Hard to tell from small sample size)

I do still have some difficulty separating Neptunian ideas from Eristic ideas (to borrow an adjective from the Discordians), as everyone I know closely with Eris foreground also has very prominent Neptune influence in their chart, whether by angularity, luminary placement, or partile luminary aspects. However, I think these few hypothetical principles given above are distinct from common Neptunian expressions.

[Jim Eshelman]

Priceless.

BTW I have Eris foreground and no strong Neptune.

[Jim Eshelman]

One of the far-from-resolved (barely approached) questions about Eris is: What fundamental need corresponds to it?

Not only is the correlation of fundamental needs to planets the most successful approach to astrology IMO, it has great advantage in interpretation and touches several other important questions in astrology. It surely is the bridge that finally anchors astrology firmly as one of the analytic social sciences, a specialized form of psychology.

But what need corresponds to Eris? I mean need in the same basic sense that we speak of essential needs for information, affection-affiliation, power, social ambition, and survival, or at least the tightly adjacent needs like individuation, adaptation, freedom and renewal, etc.

I have been digging into complexity theory - a relatively recent umbrella field arching over mathematics, physical sciences, and social sciences - as part of my primary presentation of astrological synthesis. (Human life and the character that emerges from it is only comprehensible through complexity theory - which, broadly, is the mathematics of "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts," etc.)

Anyway... along the way I've encountered the principle that each system (e.g., each person) must have a minimum necessary threshold of complexity based on the premise (this is cool!) that to be fully adaptive to its environment, circumstances, and other requirements, a system must be as complex as any conditions it encounters. For example, to be optimally adaptive, we must each be as complex as whatever we encounter in the course of our lives.

This seems obvious on reflection. It also leads into half a dozen long branching conversations right out of the gate, but those don't particularly fit here.

One conclusion, though - presuming this principle is as true as it seems, and as capable and well-acquainted minds thing it does - then it means we have a fundamental need for complexity - of greater or lesser intensity as, say, our need for information or human connection - that this need for complexity is as important to our adaptation, survival, and effective functioning in life as the needs for survival or social prestige.

I suspect, therefore, that Eris can be credited with corresponding to a biological need for complexity.

[Danica]

[...] to be fully adaptive to its environment, circumstances, and other requirements, a system must be as complex as any conditions it encounters.

Within the context of "biological need", as you put it, pertinent to "adaptation, survival, and effective functioning in life", this does not stand - a virus, for example is highly adaptive to its environment, and the unique survival-requirements of the given species, functioning highly effectively in accordance to what's its nature, whilst being a system characterized primarily by simplicity - complexity is practically exactly the opposite of how its own system operates and tends to be developing.

The fundamental question is: how will we define what are the basic needs?
From what essential premises, values and general ideas-framework about human nature are such definitions to stem, so that they are Vital, not only seeming good-enough at some given period, but actually functional so that they are universally applicable to what we call Homo in a wider time-frame scale (considering the openness-of-further-development, not solely the what's-been-transpiring-thus-far) ... ?

Re attaching the concept "power needs" to Mars, BTW, here are some notes which you may perhaps find useful for further reflection (- feel free to remove from this thread, or delete entirely, if it looks unfitting):

[Removed. See below.]

And I disagree entirely re the adequate direction of movement for Astrology being toward "anchoring it firmly as one of the analytic social sciences, a specialized form of psychology":
psychology is a modern-day, a very recent springing-out, so to say, of the old, long scientifically-oriented work & effort we know as Astrology; it is simply a subset of this, of which its own thus far developed methodology, going under formally-accepted-as-official (what defines it as science) is simply in a mimicry-way applied what's been used within the context of the so-called "natural sciences" (as different from "humanistic sciences") of the period pertinent to Psychology's initial appearance and the subsequent first works within this peculiar "new-scientific-branch" umbrella/framework.
To be looking how to fit-in Astrology into this narrow framework, of this one simple, and fairly recent, mere subset-appearance of the long stream of scientific efforts & Work which Astrology itself represents - does no good to Astrology, nor for Human scientific endeavors in whole, as such.

[Jim Eshelman]

Thanks.

For the entire time I've been interested in astrology, the thing I have wanted most - in some ways, the only thing I've ever wanted from it - is for it to be a well-developed tool for analysis of a person's character as tool for depth analysis - in short, the best "psych test" in the world. I'll do my best, until my last breath, to develop this. I have every expectation I'll never see a department of astrology as part of the psych department of major universities, but I can't think of a better outcome of my life.

So that we are talking the same language, a reminder that needs theorists define power needs specifically to mean the need for aggression, dominance, controlling others, opposition, independence, defense, and more - traits we find most pronounced in people with the most pronounced Mars.

[Danica]

Context - in the process of defining itself - is important.

As I said:

The fundamental question is: how will we define what are the basic needs?
From what essential premises, values and general ideas-framework about human nature are such definitions to stem, so that they are Vital, not only seeming good-enough at some given period, but actually functional so that they are universally applicable to what we call Homo in a wider time-frame scale (considering the openness-of-further-development, not solely the what's-been-transpiring-thus-far) ... ?

[Jim Eshelman]

I'm breaking this off from the last post. It's all on-topic for the current thread but I don't want it confused with the discussion right above.

Here are some notes related to Eris, in case the members here may find them of use.

I've worked on the Eris-Uranus longer, so that is more developed, re formulations, and with listed examples; these primarily stem from observation of this combo in transit, specifically Eris-to-Uranus, not the other way around;
the Eris-Neptune ones are very recent, in-the-process, subject to significant further updates; they're not pertinent to transits specifically, but to the combo of these two planets as such, the principle of the two-combined as I have thus far observed it in practice (via analysis of synastry and the period-charts).

Notes on transiting Eris with natal Uranus
- Opening up of a new Realm; this unfolds as a process, but there's an initial *significant event* setting the process in motion.
- Spontaneity and Discovery mark the key-themes.
- Vastness-of-Extradimensional-Space in a peculiar way becomes opened up for the perception (something entirely outside of one's perception-framework thus far), with the subsequent effects on the whole psyche and further life-motion of the person.
- This Opening-Up-of-a-New-Realm comes as natural, spontaneous development of events of one's life, yet the initial *significant event* (which sets it in motion for the conscious awareness and brings it into the focus of experience) tends to come with a suddenness, and often "hitting" with striking intensity!
___________________________
From the historical examples:
- Fridtjof Nansen had it during the time when his first northern sailing experience took place; it in July 1882, while he was on the sealer "Viking", he was stricken by the idea for the Arctic expedition (--- which he then successfully undertook, after great preparations, during 1893-'96)
- Albert Hofmann at the time he discovered LSD (with the key-event happening in April 1943)
- Max Skladanowsky in 1892, which was the year when, by his account, he embarked upon the discovery of the film-camera
- Alexander Marshack during the period he embarked upon the bone "notation-marks" and subsequently, engaged into further investigation of it (book "The Roots of Civilization documents this process, and elaborates on the findings - the research took many years; the tr Eris to rx Uranus was in orb 6/1963 - 5/1973)
- Darryl Anka during 1973-1984 (in orb for 11 years in his case!), during which time two most significant events took place - in 1973 the UFO sighting, and in 1983 the beginning of direct communication and his transmission/channeling of it
- Richard Francis Burton during 1824-'28 (only 4 years in his case!); in 1825 he started traveling and living a nomadic type of life, with family moving often, and the young Burton getting exposed to experiences and information which formed the basis for his later development and life-movement
- Carl G. Jung during 1921-'27, which covers the period he traveled to Northern America and spent time with the Pueblo Indians (1924-25) and following this, the journey to Mount Elgon in Kenya (1925-26)
- Paschal B. Randolph during 1845-1849 (focused in 1847), covering the initial period of his exposure to information and engagement in experiences which opened up an entirely-new-realms, and formatively defined his unique subsequent life-motion.
- Timothy Leary during the period from 7/1987 until his death: the time when he became fascinated with the computers, internet and virtual reality, supporting the Cyberdelic Culture, blogging about own daily intake of consciousness-altering substances, and giving interviews on the newly developed philosophy of approach to death; book "Chaos & Cyber Culture" written (published in 1994)
- Paul Foster Case during period 6/1918 to 6/1925, covering the crucial events of connecting with Whitty, practical exposure to the G.D.-related knowledge and material, the summer 1921 "phone call from Master R" (aspect was focused during 1921-22), and the subsequent work of establishing the B.O.T.A.

Notes [initial] on Neptune - Eris combination

- a sudden draw (magnetic, feels overwhelmingly-irresistible, strong) into an obsession-akin stream-condition;
- sudden-shifting of psychological conditions, with extremity to it (like: from profound despondence/pain to pitch-heights to exalted, enraptured states ..);
- *Inspiration* - creative stream (when the tide does not drawn the psyche, but there is presence-with-it and artful movement-through-it);
- vast-ocean of Hope & Despair, *both* of these together (in time sequence, in experience, usually it's solely one or the other that gets focalized in awareness); the degree of capacity for presence to *both simultaneously* provides the Anchoring-quality - this emerging not as a "mechanism", but as a flowing-moving-condition ...
- Intuitive openness - full naked openness - to be moving-through the depths of the vast-ocean of these tides (of "hope&despair"), without any thinking/planning to it, nor an organized-kind of approach, guided by the quality-of-tides themselves, blindly and fully intuitively as they appear
- in period charts, depending on other factors may be indicator for suicidal tendencies emphasized [- this needs further investigation]

[Jim Eshelman]

The fundamental question is: how will we define what are the basic needs?
From what essential premises, values and general ideas-framework about human nature are such definitions to stem, so that they are Vital, not only seeming good-enough at some given period, but actually functional so that they are universally applicable to what we call Homo in a wider time-frame scale (considering the openness-of-further-development, not solely the what's-been-transpiring-thus-far) ... ?

First, values and even premises aren't roots of needs.

By “need,” I mean a physical or psychological imperative that drives action. (“Action” can include thought, though it especially means visible behavior.) I don't know that we need to define them, since research psychologists have spent decades on the topic. By their nature, they're all primitive, which means they'll always be basic to the human condition - just expressed and exteriorized in different contexts and, therefore, in different ways.

[Jim Eshelman]

Within the context of "biological need", as you put it, pertinent to "adaptation, survival, and effective functioning in life", this does not stand - a virus, for example is highly adaptive to its environment, and the unique survival-requirements of the given species, functioning highly effectively in accordance to what's its nature, whilst being a system characterized primarily by simplicity - complexity is practically exactly the opposite of how its own system operates and tends to be developing.

Interesting point. I'm still exploring the "law of requisite complexity" (a spin-off of the older "law of requisite variety") and may come to the same conclusion. At the moment, it's quite intriguing.

I also stated it too casually above. To state it more precisely, it says that to be effectively adaptive, the internal complexity of any system must match the external complexity it will confront. That's mostly what a said above, but not quite. (Just wanted to be clear.)

Re attaching the concept "power needs" to Mars, BTW, here are some notes which you may perhaps find useful for further reflection (- feel free to remove from this thread, or delete entirely, if it looks unfitting):

The notes were on Mars and not particularly apropos to this thread, so I've done that. (The passage included ideas about power that weren't really about what psychologists call "power needs." My only remark would be that it's a matter of definition, and I defined my usage above.)

And I disagree entirely re the adequate direction of movement for Astrology being toward "anchoring it firmly as one of the analytic social sciences, a specialized form of psychology": psychology is a modern-day, a very recent springing-out, so to say, of the old, long scientifically-oriented work & effort we know as Astrology; it is simply a subset of this, of which its own thus far developed methodology, going under formally-accepted-as-official (what defines it as science) is simply in a mimicry-way applied what's been used within the context of the so-called "natural sciences" (as different from "humanistic sciences") of the period pertinent to Psychology's initial appearance and the subsequent first works within this peculiar "new-scientific-branch" umbrella/framework.

Or, it's the best current evolution of what astrology was always intended to be. Psychology is the superset. I just wish that, as field, it would recognize astrology (both by history and future potential) as a significant part of that superset of understanding the human psyche and an individual's behavior.

There used to be a term popular among astrologers, "astro-psychology." I always thought that redundant, though I was never settled on whether the single term should be "astrology" or "psychology." Ultimately, they have the same aim and deal with the same thing.

But that's all a thread for its own topic. I have nothing to add about Eris this point but turn the thread back to Eris before it goes farther afield.

In any case, as posted earlier, in the search for a fundamental need to express the presence of Eris within us, there hasn't been an identified fundamental need that is at all right; but it just might be that there is an innate need for complexity. Goodness knows, the entire course of human history has been one of progressive, increasing complexity with only rare interruptions or reversals. Complexity does seem a fundamental characteristic of Eris, which abides comfortably within a swarm of what seem vast and chaotic parts or overwhelming multiplicity that gives an impression of randomness, and disorder.

[Danica]

[...] but it just might be that there is an innate need for complexity. Goodness knows, the entire course of human history has been one of progressive, increasing complexity with only rare interruptions or reversals. Complexity does seem a fundamental characteristic of Eris, which abides comfortably within a swarm of what seem vast and chaotic parts or overwhelming multiplicity that gives an impression of randomness, and disorder.

Speaking of the seeming-incomprehensibility of high-complexity that on more careful, focused observation reveals itself to be but a repeated self-replication (a mere multiplication-in-quantity) of a basic simple pattern, Mandelbrot had Sun trine Eris (one of the two planetary aspects with his Sun, and the only "static", the other being the tight octile with Pluto), and during ~ 1970 to 1978, when the initial & major phase of his process of fractal-related insight & discoveries came to unfold, tr Eris was moving within 1* orb of octile to his natal Sun.

[Jim Eshelman]

Digression: I think it's hilariously on-target symbolism that Mandelbrot - a Scorpio-Leo - is most noted for a theory of roughness and a theory of self-similarity. I do wish we had a time for him.

[Mike]

I'm intrigued by the idea of there being a fundamental need for complexity, and Eris corresponding to that, but I'm having a hard time agreeing that a system needs to be as complex as what confronts it in order to adapt. I think my difficulty is mostly with connotations on the word "complex."

Jim, would you say that this phrasing is substantially the same in meaning as what you're articulating, or am I off base?

"Any system, when confronting new factors that are not already present within that system, is either disrupted by those new factors, or it integrates them dynamically into its self-coherence."

Sort of like: when a galaxy merges with another galaxy, they either merge into a blob, or a single fully-integrated galaxy with coherent structure. We tend to view that galaxy as a "single thing," no matter how intricate its inner components are.

I'm musing on it as "coherence needs" or "flexibility needs," or even "the need to encompass/integrate/include everything."

Are we thinking (at least mostly) along the same lines?

[Jim Eshelman]

...I'm having a hard time agreeing that a system needs to be as complex as what confronts it in order to adapt. I think my difficulty is mostly with connotations on the word "complex."

I think the wording I used was "to be efficaciously adaptive." There are, of course, different levels of adaptability, and I think lesser ones work most of the time. But, yes, we should be able to filter it out over the long haul.

[/quote]Jim, would you say that this phrasing is substantially the same in meaning as what you're articulating, or am I off base?

"Any system, when confronting new factors that are not already present within that system, is either disrupted by those new factors, or it integrates them dynamically into its self-coherence." [/quote]
That seems a perfect corollary of what I was saying. - Since I'm playing with someone else's articulated principle, I should comment on the "already present within that system." That wouldn't apply to the way that this was first articulated. The original form is that to be efficaciously adaptive, a system must be as internally complex as the external complexity which it confronts (i.e., to which it has to adapt).

Sort of like: when a galaxy merges with another galaxy, they either merge into a blob, or a single fully-integrated galaxy with coherent structure. We tend to view that galaxy as a "single thing," no matter how intricate its inner components are.

Understood.

Are we thinking (at least mostly) along the same lines?

Sorta kinda maybe? Do a Google or Bing on the law of requisite complexity (derived from the law of requisite variety0 and tell me what you think.

PS - I suspect you didn't see my note tagged onto your birthday thread. Can you PM me? I need your help on something I think you can easily do.

[Mike]

I didn't see that, and am actually still not seeing a post attached to that thread, although I do have a PM from you. I responded and am available to help!

[Jim Eshelman]

A quick note: Today is the exact progressed Moon = natal Eris/Ascendant. The surrounding days have not been characteristically Erisian (at least, as this has seemed previously). If they have any particular characteristic, it's that they've .been really boring.