Parans - an integrated theory

Q&A and discussion on Angularity.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5575
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Parans - an integrated theory

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu May 11, 2017 11:25 am

Parans (paranatellonta) are aspects formed when two planets simultaneously occupy an angle. This simple definition makes the point very well - and then requires a fair bit of technical definition to pin it down. Furthermore, parans can occur in multiple planes of reference. For example, it often isn't recognized that parans exist between planets on the Vertex-Antivertex axis and those on the Horizon or Meridian.

The purpose of this post is to give an integrated presentation of how to view these variants.

BASIC CONCEPT. Astrology uses three mutually-perpindicular planes of mundane reference. (There are, of course, also celestial frames of reference, of which the ecliptic is primary.) These three planes of reference are the Horizon, the Meridian, and the Prime Vertical.

The angles, as we know them ecliptically (e.g., the longitude of the Ascendant) are the points of intersection of the ecliptic with one of these planes: the Horizon (for Ascendant or Descendant), Meridian (for MC or IC), or the Prime Vertical (for the Vertex or Antivertex). The most important thing to know, though, is that the planes themselves are perpindicular to each other. The entire Meridian is exactly 90° from the entire Horizon and the entire Prime Vertical. The same is true of all the other combinations.

This gives us a simple theory that integrates all of the combinations. It is this: Paran-aspects between planets on any two of these three planes are measured in the third plane.

Simple and familiar example: We use a chart of Prime Vertical coordinates (called a Mundoscope) to measure mundane aspects between a planet on the Horizon and a planet on the Meridian.

Similarly, we would use the measuring circle of the Horizon (called Azimuth) to measure mundane aspects between a planet on the Meridian and one on the Prime Vertical.

Finally, we would use the measuring circle of the Meridian to measure aspects between a planet on the Horizon and one on the Prime Vertical. Unfortunately, we don't presently have a direct way of doing this - there isn't a standard of measurement along the circle of the Meridian. (Altitude doesn't do it, since that's measured, in each case, along a great circle at right angles to the horizon - a particular azimuth - passing through the zenith and nadir points. It isn't measured against the Meridian per se.) I've developed a way of doing this, which I'll demonstrate below - but it's tedious.

For now, my main point is that there is a single, integrated theory of measuring these three.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5575
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Parans - an integrated theory

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu May 11, 2017 11:27 am

Here is a sample chart - name and birth data withheld.
Sample-Natal.jpg
This woman has planets on each of the three angular axes: Moon conjunct Jupiter on the MC, Venus setting, and Uranus on the Vertex. Without measuring exact orbs, we can estimate the following parans:

Moon conjunct Jupiter (in all frameworks)
Moon-Jupiter square Venus (Meridian to Horizon: measured along PV)
Moon-Jupiter square Uranus (Meridian to PV: measured along Horizon)
Venus square Uranus (Horizon to PV: measured along Meridian)

As a first step in estimating what the mundane situation actually is, we can extract a few plane-relevant details from Solar Fire's standard Report page:

Moon 0°30' before (east of) MC in Right Ascension
Jupiter 1°58' before (east of) MC in Right Ascension
Venus 2°23' after (below) Descendant in Altitude
Uranus 3°16' after (below, north of) Vertex in Azimuth

By this, we could estimate at least that all these aspects are going to exist. We might crudely and approximately guess their orbs as:
Moon-Venus 2°53'
Moon-Jupiter 1°28'
Moon-Uranus 3°46'
Venus-Jupiter 4°21'
Venus-Uranus 0°53'
Jupiter-Uranus 5°14'

But how can we calculate these directly and accurately?

First, here is the Mundoscope (Prime Vertical chart). It will let us detect aspects between planets on the Horizon and Meridian.
Sample-PV.JPG
This is the historically standard way of showing this sort of classic paran, and appears to be the mathematically correct way of doing it. We see that the Moon-Venus paran-square has an orb of 3°24', and Venus-Jupiter of 5°20'. Our estimates (above) weren't too bad, and would serve in a pinch - but this is better.

Next, we can use an Azimuth chart (i.e., measured along the Horizon) to see the mundane square between the Moon-Jupiter and the Midheaven and Uranus on the Vertex.
Sample-Azi.JPG
Here we see the Moon-Uranus paran-square quite clearly, with an orb of 4°00'. Jupiter-Uranus is too wide to count. We even see a previously unsuspected Jupiter-Pluto mundane aspect, but I doubt we should consider this: There all sorts of possible mundane aspects, and we are only considering those between planets actually on one of the angles. Pluto is too far away to count as "on the Vertex," so we're not interested. - Note that our estimate of the orbs, once more, is pretty good: 4° vs. "almost 4°" for Moon-Uranus, and 5° vs. 6° for Jupiter-Uranus (in either case, too wide to count).

Now we come to the complicated one. How do we measure the seeming paran-square between Venus on the Descendant (Horizon) and Uranus on the Vertex (Prime Vertical). We think it's a just-partile orb, but we're not sure. We don't have the same easy calculation way as for the others. What seems the best approach to me is to overlay the "Prime Vertical Analogue" and "Azimuth Analogue" charts Solar Fire (and some other programs) can calculate, and zero in on the Venus-Uranus aspect. Here's what that chart looks like.
Sample-blended.jpg
All we're interested in is the Venus-Uranus aspect. It appears to be partile, with an orb of 32'. This is even closer than our original estimate (but, once more, "in the ballpark
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5575
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Parans - an integrated theory

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu May 11, 2017 11:34 am

DDonovanKinsolving wrote:
Jim Eshelman wrote:Paran-aspects between planets on any two of these three planes are measured in the third plane.
Excellently summarized! I've been reaching in this direction for a long time, Jim, but never hit on so elegant a concept and statement! I think this is a breakthrough.

Take a look at Solar Fire's "Z-Analog RA" option under the Harmonics menu. I'm a little fuzzy-minded at the moment and am having trouble shifting my visualization; is this what you're looking for? I do understand what you're saying: put another way, the Meridian forms the equator of the sphere and the PV-Horizon intersections form the poles. I just am not clear the Z-Analog RA is representing it.

-Derek

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5575
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Parans - an integrated theory

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu May 11, 2017 11:34 am

SteveS wrote:Mucho appreciated Jim! If I correctly understand your post, we should also allow for Paran combinations with any of the meridian/horizon angles with the auxiliary angles & the accented points of the Vertex axis?
If we take the basic definition of a paran as "two planets simultaneously on an angle," then that would be the conclusion, yes?

But I didn't address the entire range of "auxiliary angles" etc. (I don't know what yoy mean by "accented points" btw.) To finish this out:

What about the Eastpoint-Westpoint axis?
These are, primarily, squares to the Meridian as measured along the equator, so that EP or WP with the MC or IC are simply measured in RA. Easy enough.

But EP/WP are more complicated than that. The actual points mark the intersections of the Horizon and the Prime Vertical. (Such points are always, therefore, 90 degrees from the MC as measured either along the equator or as measured along the circle of the Horizon or as measured along the Prime Vertical. It's quite elegant when viewed spatially.)

The practical question then becomes: How would be best show parans between planets on EP or WP with planets (a) on the Asc/Dsc or (b) on the Vx/AVx? The answer is that I don't think there is a common framework for displaying this, and, at best, we'd have to overlap two wheels as I did with Horizon vs. PV. If a planet were literally ON the EP/WP - exactly in that exact point in space - then it would also be simultaneously ON the Horizon and the PV (since the EP/WP are the two points where the Horizon and PV intersect). But we're not requiring that a planet be in one exact spot to be "on" the EP or WP, just that it be somewhere along the great circle passing through one of these points at right angles to the equator.

This complex picture is worth elaborating: The EP is that point on the eastern half of the sky where the Horizon and PV great circles intersect. It is, therefore, always exactly due east on the horizon. This is also the exact point where the celestial equator crosses bot hthe Horizon and PV, because the celestial equator always rises due east and sets due west. Three important great circles thus intersect there. (The ecliptic, in contrast, only rarely rises due east. In all but two moments a day, it crosses the Horizon either north or south of due east.)

If we draw a circle through this point at right angles to the ecliptic and passing through the ecliptic poles, we get the celestial longitude of this point. That is, we get the celestial longitude that the Sun (or any planet with 0° celestial latitude) would have if it were exactly at this point 90° from the MC along the celestial equator. This is the longitude that we write onto a horoscope and call "the Eastpoint." We aren't interested in ecliptical conjunctions with it, though - we only use those to approximate the RA conjunction.

If we draw a circle through this point at right angles to the celestial equator, and passing through the equatorial poles (which are always located on the great circle of the Meridian, at an altitude equal to the co-latitude of the location; i.e., on the Meridian, as far below the Zenith as one's geographic location is above the geographic equator), we get the first cusp of the Morinus house system; i.e., the ecliptical square to the Midheaven.

Those are interesting in their own right. And we already know how to measure parans between EP/WP planets and those on the MC/IC, by measuring purely in RA. But how about parans of these planets and the other angles?

I'm talking in circles in order to paint the bigger picture, but, as I said before, I don't think a single chart will display it. I have in front of me the chart of a woman with Mercury exactly setting mundanely (it looks to be 4° above the Dsc in the ecliptic, but has 0°48' altitude) and the Sun on the WP (it is 0°34' away on the ecliptic and 0°33' in RA - remember, the Sun has zero latitude, so exact ecliptic and equatorial conjunctions will always be exactly the same). But there is no single great circle that they have in common.

Aren't the both exactly on the Horizon circle? No, the Sun is nearly 7° below the Horizon and Mercury right on it. The PV? No, the distance is also 7° there. Azimuth? No, Mercury, though exactly setting, is doing so 23° south of due west. And of course they don't match on the ecliptic or equator.

All we can do is note that Mercury is 0°48' before the Dsc, and the Sun is 0°33' after the WP.

However, here is an important distinction: We can't really count this as an aspect - a spatial separation between the planets. We'd have to redefine "aspect" to mean a separation in time rather than in space. There is no aspect in space.)

With Vertex vs. Asc/Dsc, there actually IS a measuring circle that they share in common - it's the Meridian. We just don't have a way, with existing and available software, to display this. But with the EP/WP vs. Horizon or PV, there's actually NO CIRCLE THEY HAVE IN COMMON. They don't actually ever make an aspect. They are only co-angularities.

This, therefore, comes down to terminology. Do we truly take the paran definition of "two planets on an angle at the same time" to include any co-angularity? Or do we require that the planets' conjunction, opposition, or square be measurable in a common framework?

I don't have a firm opinion. On the one hand, I lean toward distinguishing parans that are measurable in a single space-based framework from those that are not, and calling the others "co-angularities." On the other hand, in practice it's awfully functional to think of any two planets simultaneously on any angles as parans (at least casually), and this gives us the practical information we need for astrological interpretation (the fact that two planets are simultaneously on the angles.)

So I leave that as a cultural problem to resolve, not a mathematical one.

Considering the Northpoint/Southpoint. These are the squares to the Vertex. I'm probably the first to ever call them this (which I did in Interpreting Solar Returns). Here is the explanation.

The actual NP/SP are the two points where the Meridian intersects the Horizon. That is, they are literally the two points that are due north and due south on the Horizon. Now, if you draw a great circle through these two points at right angles to the ecliptic, they turn out to be... the ecliptical squares to the Vertex.

So the squares to the Vertex are the longitudes of the NP and SP.

Do planets "on" the NP/SP form parans with planets on other angles? Well, they certainly form co-angularities. But is there any "mundane" aspect to them?

In Right Ascension, a planet on the NP/SP would be exactly on the MC/IC (at the point dividing the MC from the IC - no way to distinguish which half of the Meridian). In PV, the NP/SP are exactly conjunct each other and exactly on the Horizon. In fact, a planet or star exactly on the MC or IC in RA, with a declination equal to the co-latitude of one's location, would be simultaneously on the MC/IC and Asc/Dsc at the same moment - actually on all four angles! And, it would be conjunct the Soutpoint (or, in southern latitudes, conjunct the Northpoint).

But almost never will a planet conjunct the NP or SP in longitude also be exactly on the NP or SP in space. They likely will be quite a bit off the Horizon and also quite a bit off the Meridian, with no expectation that they even be near the Prime Vertical.

So there is (as far as I can tell) no way to measure these positions mundanely that's relevant to the current question.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5575
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Parans - an integrated theory

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu May 11, 2017 11:35 am

SteveS wrote:Jim wrote:
This, therefore, comes down to terminology. Do we truly take the paran definition of "two planets on an angle at the same time" to include any co-angularity?
IMO—Yes. We know any planets on any intersection of the astronomical circles you are discussing in this thread are symbolically more potent verses any other position on the scope wheel. We can and do rate the potency depending on which intersection of circles are involved, but if the true definition of a Paran means ‘the most powerful of all configurations’ known in astrology—then we should ‘include any co-angularity’ for Parans. As far as I am concerned, we astrologers are missing, at times, important astrological signatures by not having a software package to recognize the possible co-angle Parans. Important possible astrological signatures involving Parans remain hidden from our eyes with conventional software packages. I have twice in my astrological life tried to address this Paran issue by asking astrological program writers to price (with no commercial interest for me) a special Paran program, which would allow me to quickly identify any possible Paran signatures involving all angles. Both times the program writers declined to price this special Paran package citing not enough time to devote. I thank Mr. Cyril Fagan and SolarFire for offering the Mundoscope which at least allows me to quickly identify with my eyes when a planet is bodily on the primary angles for Paran identification, and I also thank you Jim for offering your thoughts on this issue which with study may allow me to develop a mental shortcut for Paran identity with the co-angles.

Jim wrote:
So there is (as far as I can tell) no way to measure these positions mundanely that's relevant to the current question.
Do you believe there would be a “way” to measure these positions mundanely with a special program written by an astrological program writer?

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5575
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Parans - an integrated theory

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu May 11, 2017 11:35 am

NP & SP? No, I literally meant that they are only meaningful as ecliptical points.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5575
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Parans - an integrated theory

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu May 11, 2017 11:36 am

StarAgeWiz wrote:Jim,

What is your view on the maximum orb allowed for Parans in a Natal Chart?

I tend to allow 2 deg. max. orb

Tighter orbs for Solunar transits

Riyal allows only up to 4 minutes....Janus way up to 5 deg.

thanks, Mike

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5575
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Parans - an integrated theory

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu May 11, 2017 11:36 am

StarAgeWiz wrote:What is your view on the maximum orb allowed for Parans in a Natal Chart?
No more than 2°.
Tighter orbs for Solunar transits
Transits, per se, never more than 1°.

But, over time, I've been increasingly disenchanted with the idea of potential natal parans. The only thing that leaves me with a sense that these are of value is that the CHANGE in them, during relocation, is often striking. If that's the case, then there must be something to it natally, though it's quite difficult to distinguish their operation from the range of natal ecliptical aspects. Actual parans - planets currently actually on angles - are a different matter.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5575
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Parans - an integrated theory

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu May 11, 2017 11:37 am

SteveS wrote:
Jim wrote:But, over time, I've been increasingly disenchanted with the idea of potential natal parans. The only thing that leaves me with a sense that these are of value is that the CHANGE in them, during relocation, is often striking. If that's the case, then there must be something to it natally, though it's quite difficult to distinguish their operation from the range of natal ecliptical aspects. Actual parans - planets currently actually on angles - are a different matter.
It could be that natal potential parans have to do with a 'potential' main life event when the potential natal paran turns into an active paran with SSR angles. Fagan said pertaining to potential natal parans:
Such configurations are particularly important when they fall on the angles of a return map whether cast for the birthplace or for the place of residence.
Jim wrote:The only thing that leaves me with a sense that these are of value is that the CHANGE in them, during relocation, is often striking.
Yes, be careful of relocating with a malefic natal potential paran, turning the potential paran into an active paran. A classic example of Fagan's above words pertaining to SSR return charts is Bill Clinton’s Natal Chart which had a potential natal paran of Moon-Saturn with his Natal Moon anticulminating (IC) with a sidereal time of 15:14:05, and his Natal Saturn Setting at 15:13:45. As far as I could see, Clinton never exhibited any Natal Moon-Saturn traits in his life, but when he became President and ‘CHANGED’ his residence to DC, his 1998 SSR for the Monica L. scandal produce a SSR with a rising sidereal time of 15:16:00, culminating MC 15:16:00 turning his potential natal Moon-Saturn paran into an active paran with his 1998 SSR and ‘Changed’ residence in DC. Clinton’s AA rated birth: Aug 19th 1946, 8:51 AM CST, Hope Arkansas. Of course when this scandal broke we could then easily see the depressing quality of this potential Natal paran of Moon-Saturn manifest itself. This can be better seen with calculating Clinton’s 1998 DC SSR and placing his Natal Chart with a bi-wheel combined with his 1998 SSR.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5575
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Parans - an integrated theory

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu May 11, 2017 11:37 am

Freya wrote:I don't know whether it is because I don't have any planets foreground, but my natal parans match very well the sybolism in my life
If you take them and strip out any that are duplicated by ecliptical aspects, do the remaining ones, by themselves, describe your character with the same level of accuracy as ecliptical aspects?
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5575
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Parans - an integrated theory

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu May 11, 2017 11:37 am

Freya wrote:Yes, very much so. They actually describe me with a depth of accuracy that an analysis of ecliptical aspects alone would not be able to do. I always attributed this to having no planets foreground in my natal chart, hence no aspects foreground.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5575
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Parans - an integrated theory

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu May 11, 2017 11:38 am

Jupiter Sets At Dawn wrote:
Freya wrote:Yes, very much so. They actually describe me with a depth of accuracy that an analysis of ecliptical aspects alone would not be able to do. I always attributed this to having no planets foreground in my natal chart, hence no aspects foreground.
Freya, if you could list the parans and aspects and give a line or two on how they describe you (nothing in detail, just generalities) I think we'd all find it instructive. Sort of a compare and contrast. If you have time, of course.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5575
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Parans - an integrated theory

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu May 11, 2017 11:38 am

Freya wrote:Yes, sure. Below is my natal chart

Image

Here are the aspects (I quote from Jim's definitions)

1. Venus square Moon. The entire description written by Jim applies.

2. Mercury square Pluto- the description that applies here is "Thinking is along independent, unusual lines, often branching into bizarre, rarely-explored fields; seeking to integrate intellect with some deeper source of understanding." It has manifested in a interest in various cryptic subjects, ancient languages and a deep interest in the occult. 'Excitable ain speech and boundless enthusasm" do not apply. I see myself as quite "saturnine" and often somber.

3. Sun trine Mars- does not apply much, save for the description of "courage, direct and forthright". The rest is just not me as far as aggression goes.

4. Jupiter-Saturn- does not apply. I am the complete opposite of the definition, unless "political" can be substituted with "interested in the law".

5. Sun square moon- does not apply apart from "Intense desire in whatever they undertake"

6. Mars conj Saturn- Now Allen's description applies "They "can take it." they are not easily driven to give up in the battle of life... perseverance in the face of heavy odds." When I was younger, Jim's description applied of " an inborn sense of weakness or inadequacy" which resulted in "Some accept their weakness and are noted for gentleness and inoffensiveness." The manifestation of this aspect has changed (luckily!!)

7. Neptune sextile pluto describes me well, but so many people have it that I am not sure I should be considering it.


Below is a list of the parans

Image


I only describe the aspects that are not also found in the ecliptical aspects

Moon-Pluto describes me very well. "Bold" is true only at times, mostly shy. So I would give it 99.9%

Moon-Neptune- The following is 100% accurate "Sensitive – often too much! Tunes into others on an emotional (psychic?) level: can be deeply understanding, genuinely sympathetic, but also emotionally (psychically) vulnerable, easily wounded, with abiding fears of rejection. Self-defense through avoidance (non-confrontation) & slamming shut senses & good sense. When wounded, withdraws & introverts (often with excessive rumination, imagination working overtime, worry, moodiness). Drawn to the imaginative, surrealistic, and creative."

Sun-Saturn 95% accurate

Jupiter-Pluto- 99% accurate except for "hunger for power".

Venus-Mars 100% accurate

The combination of these describe me very well. If I were to leave out the ecliptical aspects, these alone would describe me very well.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 5575
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Parans - an integrated theory

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu May 11, 2017 11:38 am

Jupiter Sets At Dawn wrote:Thanks Freya. That really helps me see what you're talking about. Very useful.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest