PDA

View Full Version : How to score different aspects


oem7110
02-18-2014, 06:10 AM
I would like to score following aspects in term of good and bad between the range 0~100%
Conjunction, Opposition, Trine, Square, Sextile


Does anyone have any suggestions on how to give a score to them?
Thanks in advance for any suggestions :>

Kaiousei no Senshi
02-18-2014, 06:19 AM
I would like to score following aspects in term of good and bad between the range 0~100%
Conjunction, Opposition, Trine, Square, Sextile


There isn't really a numerical scoring system, but oppositions are generally the worst, trines are generally the best. Squares are worse than Trines but better than oppositions. Sextiles are better than squares, but not as effective as Trines.

Conjunctions are going to depend on the planets involved and their states, moreso than the previous aspects.

oem7110
02-18-2014, 07:20 AM
...
Conjunctions are going to depend on the planets involved and their states, moreso than the previous aspects.

Could you please give me any suggestions on following Conjunctions? which one is better than the other,
Sun and Jupiter
Sun and Saturn
Jupiter and Saturn

Furthermore, when those conjuctions compare with Opposition, Trine, Square, Sextile, which one is better?

Do you have any suggestions?

Thank you very much for any suggestions :>

mdinaz
02-18-2014, 03:53 PM
It doesn't work that way. If you had a chart with nothing but trines, you'd likely be lazy, selfish and accomplish little in life because everything comes easy and you feel no need to work for anything. Squares and oppositions, while initially negative, are what spur us forward to accomplish things. Most of the most accomplished people in history have had some negative aspects because these are what give people impetus to succeed. Conjunctions are neither positive or negative, they only emphasize. Oppositions can be either also, as while they require balance to manage, they can also provide compensatory energy. Sextiles only provide opportunity, you have to make effort to utilize them or otherwise they do little. There are many other aspects that are important but those are the "major" aspects, the most prominent ones.

Zarathu
02-18-2014, 04:07 PM
I would like to score following aspects in term of good and bad between the range 0~100%
Conjunction, Opposition, Trine, Square, Sextile


Does anyone have any suggestions on how to give a score to them?
Thanks in advance for any suggestions :>

I PM'd you.

Kaiousei no Senshi
02-18-2014, 05:08 PM
Could you please give me any suggestions on following Conjunctions? which one is better than the other,
Sun and Jupiter
Sun and Saturn
Jupiter and Saturn

Furthermore, when those conjuctions compare with Opposition, Trine, Square, Sextile, which one is better?

Do you have any suggestions?

Thank you very much for any suggestions :>

There isn't really a cookie cutter way to approach aspects, what each individual aspect means or is doing is going to depend on a long list of factors; what's their condition? what's their nature? who is applying? is there reception? what houses are they ruling? what houses are they in? who's dominating?

Only with all of those things in mind are we going to be able to reach a conclusion about a particular aspect.

tsmall
02-18-2014, 10:21 PM
Could you please give me any suggestions on following Conjunctions? which one is better than the other,
Sun and Jupiter
Sun and Saturn
Jupiter and Saturn

Furthermore, when those conjuctions compare with Opposition, Trine, Square, Sextile, which one is better?

Do you have any suggestions?

Thank you very much for any suggestions :>

Sun conjunct any planet means that planet is combust, unless it is cazimi.

Conjunctions are not <technically> aspects, though they are most often grouped together with them. The word aspect comes from the word to regard or look at.

Not all trines and sextiles are nice (and traditional astrology does not assume that trines and sextiles are lazy or that squares and oppostions are what gets us moving, as those are modern psychological ideas with no basis in traditional aspect interpretation.)

My real question for the OP is what exactly are you trying to weigh or rate aspects for? Becuase that isn't what we do; it seems like you are going about what ever you are trying to discover the wrong way. Are you asking about a chart in which the Sun, Jupiter, and Saturn are assembled (conjunct one another?)

Traditional aspect theory is fairly complex, and as kai points out, you cannot even begin to interpret the aspect until you had delineated the condition of the planets involved in the aspect. Once you have done so, the list of planetary configurations is:

domain
advancement
retreat
assembly
regard
connection
disregard
emptiness
wildness
transfer
collection
reflection
barring
pushing (nature, power, management0
returning
revoking
obsturction
escape
cutting of light
largesse
recomepense
reception

JUPITERASC
02-18-2014, 11:28 PM
Could you please give me any suggestions on following Conjunctions?

which one is better than the other,

Sun and Jupiter

Sun and Saturn

Jupiter and Saturn

Furthermore, when those conjuctions compare with Opposition, Trine, Square, Sextile, which one is better?

Do you have any suggestions?

Thank you very much for any suggestions :>
According to astrological methods of 17th century astrologer Morin de Villefranche
an approach taught by Zoltan Mason of New York
which highlights viewing the chart as a whole integrated unit.
using interpretation skills that create an image of the person
and detects their motivations and drives
there is a specific way to proceed when two or more planets occupy a house :smile:

HOW TO PROCEED WHEN TWO OR MORE PLANETS OCCUPY A HOUSE
http://www.forumonastrology.com/foa/newmain.html

Larxene
02-23-2014, 02:57 AM
According to Firmicus Maternus (note, this is not a quote):

Opposition almost always brings bad things (there are exceptions).
Square often brings bad events, but events that are less intense than opposition.
Sextile is good, but the goodness of the events and things are less intense than trine.
Trine is the most harmonious and brings goodness almost all the time (there are exceptions).
Conjunction is neutral. It is good with good planets, bad with bad planets (reminds me of Conjunctio in Geomancy).



Conjunction is interesting. It still depends a lot on which tradition and which authors you follow.

- Generally, I think planets of the same sect will be more sympathetic towards each other. For example, despite the fact that Saturn is malefic and Jupiter is benefic, both Valens and Maternus gave positive delineations when they are together.

There are exceptions, however. Mars and Venus together, while of the same sect, will often make the native adulterous and over-sexed, although if they are in-sect and dignified, the tendency will be lessened.

- Planets together with the Sun are often harmed, according to Maternus.

- Mercury follows the nature and condition of the planets it is conjoined to. With Saturn, the native becomes rigid/strict and timid, but well learned and often involved in the hidden arts (occult, etc). With Mars, the native is brave and impulsive, very mischievous and may be involved in thievery, robbery, and other heinous crimes. With Venus, charming, elegant and graceful, often musically inclined and fluent with words.



We should not score aspects with percentages. Aspects are not interval/ratio data; 6 is not two times larger than 3. Aspects are qualitative data, so we should use a scale instead, which is a form of ordinal data.

dr. farr
02-23-2014, 03:39 AM
Best single book I've read about aspects is Charles Carter's "The Astrological Aspects"; it was Maternus who first classified aspects as being "good" (or tending thereto) or "malefic" (or tending thereto)-we do not find this concept elaborated in Hellenist literature prior to Maternus; also remember that, pretty much up to the time of the beginning of the Islamic transitional era, the "aspects" were sign to sign based (not degree based as they have become since about the 8th century)-Vedic astrology still uses sign to sign for aspects....

Kaiousei no Senshi
02-23-2014, 04:34 AM
It was Maternus who first classified aspects as being "good" (or tending thereto) or "malefic" (or tending thereto)-we do not find this concept elaborated in Hellenist literature prior to Maternus

I disagree. While it may not be explicitly stated, reading the interpretations Valens gives us the square and opposition aspects are clearly much more difficult or negative than the trines or sextiles for the same planets. We even get this gem

For the squares often produce the same thing as the triangles, but with dangers and oppositions.

Plus I would like to say that the Thema Mundi was in full swing as a teaching tool before Maternus, since he himself presented it, no doubt while quoting or referencing that someone else used it too. In that the planetary natures are linked to the aspects, so I have a hard time thinking the general nature of squares as difficult and malefic and trines as helpful and benefic weren't utilized until Maternus.

dr. farr
02-23-2014, 04:55 AM
Lets say, then, that in the available historical record Maternus first specifically enunciates these qualities along largely "absolute" lines.

dr. farr
02-23-2014, 05:08 AM
We find the following "similarity atttributes" for aspects in pre-Maternus literature (such as Antiochus of Athens):
-opposition of the nature of Saturn
-square of the nature of Mars
-trine of the nature of Jupiter
-sextile of the nature of Venus

Now, the ancients did classify planets as natural (fundamental) "malefics" and "benefics" (as is done also in Vedic astrology), so, in this sense, the aspects could be so classified as well; however, even the ancients did not believe Saturn was always malefic under any and all conditions, nor that Jupiter was always benefic no matter what the conditions and circumstances were: so too with the aspects: and there are examples in Ptolemy, Dorotheus of Sidon, Hephaestio of Thebes, Antiochus of Athen, Paulus Alexandrianus, where-under certain circumstances-the square was spoken of as being a + aspect regarding the special situation.

Kaiousei no Senshi
02-23-2014, 06:44 PM
even the ancients did not believe Saturn was always malefic under any and all conditions

Right, but they did believe he was naturally malefic, just like the opposition (his aspect) was naturally malefic unless there were certain circumstances that made it not so bad, such as reception and whatnot.

The ability of a planet or aspect to adapt doesn't change it's natural temperament. So while you're right to say that, in some circumstances, squares can be helpful, the idea that the square being naturally difficult was first recorded in Maternus is just wrong. The nature of a Square was clearly determined from the natural temperament of Mars and his signs' placements from those of the luminaries long before Maternus.

dr. farr
02-24-2014, 03:03 AM
Ptolemy* says of aspects only that trine and sextile are "harmonius" and that square and opposition are "discordant": notice that the quote from Valens says that squares and triangles (trines) produce the same thing (!!!-obviously implying having the same result) only that squares are "with" (meaning accompanied with?) "dangers and oppositions". But extensive lists of the (supposed) effects of specific planets in specific aspect with other specific planets, are first found in Maternus (although there are some not as extensive such lists found in Manetho, a bit before the time of Maternus)-and it is to the tendency for these lists to describe planets-in-aspect as being "good" or "bad" (by specific inferences) that I was thinking about in my earlier reference to Maternus being "the first" to make such emphasis in this fashion.

That the square was frequently considered "benefic", is re-affirmed even by Abu Mashar ("Great Introduction") as late as the mid-9th century, when he writes that

"...the good fortune of the planets come...when they aspect the benefics by trine, sextile OR QUARTILE (= square; my emphasis)..."

...demonstrating (to my perhaps limited intelligence) that aspects-at least those of trine, sextile and square-were largely regarded in those oldtimes as CONDITIONAL IN RELATION TO WHAT WAS ASPECTING WHAT, rather than absolute vis-a-vis the ASPECT ITSELF.

But, getting down to practice (rather than the history of concepts), I myself follow the approach to the consideration of the meaning and ramifications of aspects so well elaborated by Modernist pioneer Charles Carter: still, I occasionally wonder if the implications of the ancient's ideas about aspects (such as the implications arising from Ptolemy's simple statement quoted above, and what Abu Mashar said about good fortune of a planet even if it is in square with a benefic), and other similar statements I have read in the oldtime literature, should perhaps modify my own outlook regarding this matter....

(* Ashmand edition of "Tetrabiblos")