Orb-influence

P

petosiris

Banned
david starling said:
I read it. According to this theory, there ARE no Orbs or trine, square, opposition Aspects as is posited in Modernistic astrology.
Click to expand...

What do you mean exactly? There are no planetary orbs, but there are orbs in the modern sense for the classical aspects. I do not distinguish much differences for the aspects of benefics though, that is correct (neither did most Hellenistic astrologers - some actually claimed that their angular aspects are even more beneficent, a thing that is also present in many Indian yogas). Personally I also don't find trines and oppositions to be amped up sextiles and squares though.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
petosiris said:
What do you mean exactly? There are no planetary orbs, but there are orbs in the modern sense for the classical aspects. I do not distinguish much differences for the aspects of benefics though, that is correct (neither did most Hellenistic astrologers - some actually claimed that their angular aspects are even more beneficent, a thing that is also present in many Indian yogas). Personally I also don't find trines and oppositions to be amped up sextiles and squares though.
Click to expand...

What's the allowable Orb for a Grand Trine, for example? Or, maybe not necessarily specific to a Trine?
 
P

petosiris

Banned
david starling said:
I read it. According to this theory, there ARE no Orbs or trine, square, opposition Aspects as is posited in Modernistic astrology.
Click to expand...

Maybe you meant that where the sextile ends, the begins and where the square ends, the trine begins, which is a normal mathematical sequence with twelve signs. In other words, where the sextile weakens, the square strengthens, where the square weakens, the trine strengthens, where the trine weakens, there is disjunction. But there are no blendings. :surprised:

david starling said:
Can you think of a name for your branch of astrology? "Synergistic astrology" might work.
Click to expand...

Hmm, holistic astrology sounds more spiritual. :smile:
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
petosiris said:
You didn't read my post, did you? What is a grand trine? /s
Click to expand...

Your version of astrology is too different from mine to make overall sense to me on the first take. I did get the gist of it, but the Aspects aren't of the usual sort. How do you define an Aspect? I understand enough to be able to incorporate a relatively short, succinct description. They seem to radiate from the Angles rather than from planet to planet. What Orb do you allow for the Angles?.
 
P

petosiris

Banned
david starling said:
Your version of astrology is too different from mine to make overall sense to me on the first take. I did get the gist of it, but the Aspects aren't of the usual sort. How do you define an Aspect? I understand enough to be able to incorporate a relatively short, succinct description. They seem to radiate from the Angles rather than from planet to planet. What Orb do you allow for the Angles?.
Click to expand...

Whee did you get this weird idea that three different frames of reference - ecliptic, planets and house systems have to be measured in the same way? I use Placidus and ecliptical aspects with Asc and Mc by 15 degree on either side at the same time. I give an alternative explanation for aspects as a plausible schematic phenomenon, not radiating phenomenon with occult rays, but I am fine with both explanations. Aspects were mostly called ''configurations'' (schemata) by the Greeks, though they did use the visual and judicial metaphors (''regard'' and ''testify'') a lot too.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
petosiris said:
Whee did you get this weird idea that three different frames of reference - ecliptic, planets and house systems have to be measured in the same way? I use Placidus and ecliptical aspects with Asc and Mc by 15 degree on either side at the same time. I give an alternative explanation for aspects as a plausible schematic phenomenon, not radiating phenomenon with occult rays, but I am fine with both explanations. Aspects were mostly called ''configurations'' (schemata) by the Greeks, though they did use the visual metaphors a lot.
Click to expand...

Planetary positions are located on the Ecliptic, using lines of celestial longitude. So, the Ecliptic is the frame of reference for the planets. The Angles are also on the Ecliptic, and locate the Houses. So, the Ecliptic is the basic frame of reference for all three.
 
P

petosiris

Banned
david starling said:
Planetary positions are located on the Ecliptic, using lines of celestial longitude. So, the Ecliptic is the frame of reference for the planets. The Angles are also on the Ecliptic, and locate the Houses. So, the Ecliptic is the basic frame of reference for all three.
Click to expand...

Yet, signs take 30 degrees, planets take individual degrees and Placidus houses take unequal degrees based on their local daily arc expressed in time. Your point being?

Angles are not on the ecliptic and are totally unrelated to it, we take the intersection of the local horizon and prime meridian with the ecliptic to find the angles, but we are mixing two different reference frames for convenience sake, to my understanding.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
petosiris said:
Yet, signs take 30 degrees, planets take individual degrees and Placidus houses take unequal degrees based on their local daily arc expressed in time. Your point being?

Angles are not on the ecliptic and are totally unrelated to it, we take the intersection of the local horizon and prime meridian with the ecliptic to find the angles to my understanding.
Click to expand...

Well, the Ascendant is the intersection of the Eastern horizon with the Ecliptic. The M.C. is the intersection of the Meridian that runs due South (due North in the Southern hemisphere) with the Ecliptic. So, the Ascendant is the exact point of Sunrise along the Ecliptic. The M.C. is the highest the Sun can rise above the horizon at any given time of year, translated down onto the Ecliptic using a longitudinal meridian.
 
P

petosiris

Banned
david starling said:
Well, the Ascendant is the intersection of the Eastern horizon with the Ecliptic. The M.C. is the intersection of the Meridian that runs due South (due North in the Southern hemisphere) with the Ecliptic. So, the Ascendant is the exact point of Sunrise along the Ecliptic. The M.C. is the highest the Sun can rise above the horizon at any given time of year, translated down onto the Ecliptic using a longitudinal meridian.
Click to expand...

Yeah, two different motions - Sun makes annual and daily revolutions around the Earth. :smile:
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
Since the topic is the Orb-influence of a planet on the Signs neighboring the Sign a planet happens to be transiting, extending past the Sign-boundaries at the cusps, and partially activating those Sign-qualities prior to the actual ingress of its Longitudinal-point into those neighboring Signs, we seem to have gotten off track. :biggrin:
 
P

petosiris

Banned
david starling said:
Since the topic is the Orb-influence of a planet on the Signs neighboring the Sign a planet happens to be transiting, extending past the Sign-boundaries at the cusps, and partially activating those Sign-qualities prior to the actual ingress of its Longitudinal-point into those neighboring Signs, we seem to have gotten off track. :biggrin:
Click to expand...

''This thread shows an utter disregard for geometry and the polarity of adjacent signs. Something either is the first masculine sign of spring or the last feminine sign of winter, easily demarcated by the marker of the equinox that nature has put there. And no thinking astrologer has ever thought of this ridiculous notion of creating own markers for thousands of years!''
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
petosiris said:
''This thread shows an utter disregard for geometry and the polarity of adjacent signs. Something either is the first masculine sign of spring or the last feminine sign of winter, easily demarcated by the marker of the equinox that nature has put there. And no thinking astrologer has ever thought of this ridiculous notion of creating own markers for thousands of years!''
Click to expand...

So, this idea is VERY ancient! A lot of ancient ideas seem ridiculous in the light of more recent Ages.
 
P

petosiris

Banned
david starling said:
Well, how do the 8 Sign-boundaries that AREN'T demarcated by the Angles preclude the crossing over of planetary Orb-influence, in your opinion?
Click to expand...

The seasons are divided into exactly three signs for many physical reasons, the two most important of which are that there are roughly twelve (not roughly 11 and not roughly 13) lunar months in a year, and that are exactly twelve cosmobiological qualitative differences that humans, animals and plants are most attuned to - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1012690&postcount=5. (The beginning, middle and end of the seasons are most important and most easily differentiated, and with the end of the previous season, which is dual, form a pattern of four, which number is the elemental foundation of the universe.) Thirdly, you can see a pattern forming also from the triangles, for every season lacks the wind that its element lacks - spring lacks drying eastern wind, summer lacks cooling northern wind, autumn lacks moistening western wind and winter lacks heating southern wind. Obviously cold hot signs (fiery water) and dry moist signs (earthy air) such as present in your system are utterly nonsensical. :smile:
 
Last edited:
Monk

Monk

Premium Member
david starling said:
Most modern-day astronomers think that astrology itself, is a ridiculous, ancient notion.
Click to expand...


I don't, using the ecliptic works both ways and the planets are so near the apparent path of the Sun, the difference is very small, i don't like using the ecliptic for fixed stars though.


It only works when stars actually sit on the ecliptic.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
david starling said:
Most modern-day astronomers think

that astrology itself, is a ridiculous, ancient notion.
Click to expand...
Monk said:
I don't, using the ecliptic works both ways and the planets
are so near the apparent path of the Sun,
the difference is very small,

i don't like using the ecliptic for fixed stars though.
It only works when stars actually sit on the ecliptic.
Click to expand...
Hi Monk :smile:

for fixed stars, parans work well
 
P

petosiris

Banned
Monk said:
I don't, using the ecliptic works both ways and the planets are so near the apparent path of the Sun, the difference is very small, i don't like using the ecliptic for fixed stars though.


It only works when stars actually sit on the ecliptic.
Click to expand...

Moon, Venus and Mercury travel pretty far from the ecliptic compared to some fixed stars so a natural explanation has to also justify their separation (?). The reason we use ecliptical and not horizontal projection is that the ecliptic has to do with the non-daily orbits of the planets that take into account daylight AND distances from other signs and planets together/holistically. Because the horizontal projection of the Moon may be in conjunction with the Ascendant (moonrise) and in square with Saturn, but in two hours the second aspect may disappear through the difference of mundane position, which is illogical when you think about what the ecliptic and an aspect represent in the spherical cosmos - their cosmic positions and daylight did not change, only their natal and hourly position changed, which is already accounted by a house system like Placidus, but which does not account for the cosmic positions throughout the day - the ecliptic does.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
Interesting group on this thread. We're each "doing our own thing", astrologically speaking, regardless of what anyone else thinks; and, willing to discuss it with anyone really interested.
 
Top