Do asteroid aspects matter

I don't know what you'll are going on about. It works! When I first studied astrology I just wanted to know if it really worked. Why it worked I'd leave to others smarter than me to figure that out. I loved how the life unfolded before my eyes.

In my chart Venus rules my 7th house and sextiles the 2nd house cusp showing my marriage brings me financial security. So does Juno in the second. Juno makes a sextile aspect to Aquarius Moon in the fourth, looking for someone who is emotionally detached. I married a man with his Moon in Aquarius. I could go on with other powerful imagery through working with asteroids that I couldn't see before.

Have we forgotten our core understanding of astrology? It works!

Moondance

graay ghost said:

Is it also important whether or not the day when someone was born was overcast or not?

Click to expand...

Local weather conditions definitely affect the visibility
or otherwise
of the visible planets

graay ghost said:

Classical astrology may be based off of light,
but isn't modern life only possible when you accept that you are affected by forces that cannot be directly observed with the naked eye?
I mean, germ theory, electricity...

working with stuff that can't be seen with the naked eye seems to be working pretty well for us humans!

Click to expand...

remember that electricity IS used to provide LIGHT after sunset

also
keep in mind that

if there were permanently
no light from the sun reaching planet earth
then there would be no life on planet earth as is currently experienced

graay ghost said:

Is it also important whether or not the day when someone was born was overcast or not?

Click to expand...

Why would it be? Astrologically speaking, that is. An eclipse, yes. A cloudy day - don't think that would have a strong astrological effect on birth, but I've never seen anything about it. Have you?

Classical astrology may be based off of light, but isn't modern life only possible when you accept that you are affected by forces that cannot be directly observed with the naked eye? I mean, germ theory, electricity... working with stuff that can't be seen with the naked eye seems to be working pretty well for us humans!

Click to expand...

If you think that ideas of the world being made up from invisible things is modern, you need to start reading more. Seriously.

JUPITERASC said:

Local weather conditions definitely affect the visibility
or otherwise
of the visible planets

remember that electricity IS used to provide LIGHT after sunset

also
keep in mind that

if there were permanently
no light from the sun reaching planet earth
then there would be no life on planet earth as is currently experienced

Click to expand...

And if the sun were to stop having gravity, the earth would be flung from its orbit to who knows where. This was not something considered by ancient astrologers at all. Heck, they didn't even know the earth went around the sun, not the other way around.

There's a lot more than visible light from space affecting life here on earth. Also, even talking about the visible spectrum, setting the limit to what's relevant to a human's visual acuity is pretty arbitrary.

@Oddity: if light that is visible to a human on earth is what's relevant in astrology, then I would totally expect an overcast day or a place with lots of light pollution to have an affect on births. I'd also expect volcanic activity to have an affect, too.

graay ghost said:

And if the sun were to stop having gravity, the earth would be flung from its orbit to who knows where.
This was not something considered by ancient astrologers at all.
Heck, they didn't even know the earth went around the sun, not the other way around.

Click to expand...

Do the research
and
you may find
that ancient astrologers
were well aware of far more than many assume

graay ghost said:

There's a lot more than visible light from space affecting life here on earth.

Click to expand...

The most important 'visible light' affecting life on earth is from the SUN
remove the sun and life as we currently experience it
is gone

graay ghost said:

Also, even talking about the visible spectrum,
setting the limit to what's relevant to a human's visual acuity is pretty arbitrary.

Click to expand...

keep in mind
that the light from the SUN affects ALL life on earth
and humans are interdependent with all life on earth

graay ghost said:

@Oddity: if light that is visible to a human on earth is what's relevant in astrology,
then I would totally expect an overcast day or a place with lots of light pollution to have an affect on births.
I'd also expect volcanic activity to have an affect, too.

Click to expand...

Obviously
for example:

PUBLISHED April 10, 2015 ~

Two hundred years ago on April 10
Indonesian volcano Tambora erupted, obliterating an entire tribe of people
cooling the Earth by several degrees
and
causing famines and disease outbreaks around the world.

It remains the largest eruption on historical record:
larger than the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa
and roughly 20 times bigger than Mount Vesuvius
which wiped the Italian town of Pompeii off the map.

If such a cataclysmic event happened now, the results would be even messier, experts such as Gillen D'Arcy Wood
an environmental historian at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
say:

"The consensus is that it would be absolutely devastating.
Our transportation, food, and humanitarian infrastructure are much better now than they were in the early 1800s
but we are also a planet of seven billion with a highly complicated global food and trade network."

Oddity said:

No, those are mathematically determined points, ways of measuring the sky. Measurement of the sky is important and the first thing astrologers had to learn to predict is where the planets were going to be, but it is not the same thing as planets and stars, so I'm a bit confused by your argument.

Even when I practised modern astrology, a distinction was made between measurement techniques and planets. No more?

Click to expand...

Of course, Oddity-- but here's what you also wrote:

The underlying philosophical statement behind traditional astrology is 'let there be light'.

It's also why people who follow traditional techniques tend to put an emphasis on sect, whether a chart is a day chart or night chart.

Now, if light doesn't matter, you can add in anything you want to a chart. If it does, there are some fairly strict cut-offs.

Click to expand...

My point being that "light doesn't matter" to some major foundations of traditional astrology, like house cusps and signs.

Again (she says till she turns blue in the face,) asteroids and the modern outer planets reflect light. They do, honestly. This is how they were discovered through enhanced magnification techniques. I mean, think about how Piazzi and Olbers discovered the "big four"* asteroids using the comparatively primitive telescopes of the early 1800s.

Really, all you're left with is the "naked eye" argument, which to me says far more about the limits to unaided human vision than it does about the light reflectance of asteroids and modern outers.

(*Ceres is now classified by the IAU as a dwarf planet.)

I agree with Moondancing, in terms of a pragmatic approach to astrological methods. Apparently I take a much more restrictive view of asteroids in the horoscope than she does, but I have found some of their uses to be really uncanny.

If something "works" in astrology, it's OK not to use it, but then the only valid reasons I have seen is that orthodox trads don't like to work outside of the box set down in centuries past. Sort of like keyboard musicians who prefer the harpsichord to the grand piano.

waybread said:

....

If something "works" in astrology, it's OK not to use it, but then the only valid reasons I have seen is that orthodox trads don't like to work outside of the box set down in centuries past. Sort of like keyboard musicians who prefer the harpsichord to the grand piano.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of things that 'work' in astrology that neither of us use. And please, please stop with the 'neo con' and 'orthodox trad' business. It sounds like nothing so much as political nastiness, and that isn't what either astrology or tradition is about.

That the statement 'let there be light' must to be followed by 'therefore, you will measure nothing' is a radical interpretation of the text, to say the least.

Your argument isn't making sense, but that may be me. If you want to use asteroids, nobody's going to stop you. But if you think that the only reason some people don't is 'traditional orthodoxy' (I'm not too sure what that means, either), then you're mistaken.

Oddity, I am sorry that you took offense at what to me are very straightforward, empirical comments. They are not political. I'm not the one here trying to suppress modern astrology, incidentally.

I have no idea where your comment came from, "that therefore you will measure nothing." It doesn't stem from anything I posted.

Please don't put words in my mouth. You are probably aware that many modern astrologers do not use asteroids, or very few.

As you know, some more orthodox* traditional astrologers use no modern planets or data points at all. Others do use them, but probably as supplementary information. For one thing, they do not fit into any table of essential dignities.

(*The Google definition of orthodox is "conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.")

I don't think I'm the one bereft of logic here. Some traditional western astrologers apparently do not understand that asteroids and modern outer planets reflect solar light, just as the traditional planets do.

waybread said:

Oddity, I am sorry that you took offense
at what to me are very straightforward, empirical comments. They are not political. I'm not the one here trying to suppress modern astrology, incidentally.

I have no idea where your comment came from, "that therefore you will measure nothing." It doesn't stem from anything I posted.

Please don't put words in my mouth.
You are probably aware that many modern astrologers do not use asteroids, or very few.

Click to expand...

The misunderstanding appears to be that some modern astrologers are unaware
that asteroids reflect such a miniscule quantity of light from the sun
that they are visible ONLY with the use of powerful telescopes ~ unless passing close to earth
in which case powerful binoculars could be sufficient:

outer planets are at such vast distances from our sun that they also reflect very little of the sun's light
that's why they are invisible without the use of powerful and expensive telescopes.
however
keep in mind that the more powerful telescopes are more expensive

and also
there is a great difference between simply going out to one's backyard at night
glancing skywards and clearly and easily being able to observe the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn

and
going out to one's backyard on a clear starry night yet being unable to view asteroids or outer planets
simply because the only binoculars and/or telescopes one can afford are not sufficiently powerful

waybread said:

As you know, some more orthodox* traditional astrologers use no modern planets or data points at all.
Others do use them, but probably as supplementary information.
For one thing, they do not fit into any table of essential dignities.

(*The Google definition of orthodox is "conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.")

Click to expand...

On-line Dictionary Definition of the word orthodox* is as follows:

1. Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion*
2. Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds.
3. Orthodox
a. Of or relating to any of the churches or rites of the Eastern Orthodox Church*
b. Of or relating to Orthodox Judaism.
4. Adhering to what is commonly accepted, customary, or traditional: an orthodox view of world affairs.
n.
1. One that is orthodox.
2. Orthodox A member of an Eastern Orthodox church.

waybread said:

I don't think I'm the one bereft of logic here.
Some traditional western astrologers apparently do not understand
that asteroids and modern outer planets reflect solar light
just as the traditional planets do.

Click to expand...

The question is
not only whether asteroids reflect solar light
but also the quantity of solar light asteroids reflect

quite simply, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn reflect far more light than asteroids and outer planets do

why?
Because Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn are closer to our sun than asteroids and outer planets
asteroids simply do not reflect as much light as Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn do

But distance from the Sun and size are not the only things that determine brightness of a celestial object. Albedo plays a big role as well, which is determined by how much light the materials of the surface/atmosphere reflects. Uranus has a relatively low albedo. If Uranus had a similar surface to Venus it might be a different story.

Not to mention it's not that Uranus is not visible from Earth but that it was so slow moving that it was originally thought to be a star. Dim stars tend to not get much attention. Once you realize they're moving all hell breaks loose.

I guess the real question is, if astronomy found something that is not visible to the naked eye out there in space that has a very profound effect on life on earth, would astrologers use it? I'm talking Nemesis-hypothesis levels of profound. We've pretty much confirmed that there's no Nemesis, but if there was, there'd be a celestial body that we can't see that's indirectly responsible for mass extinctions every 26-27 million years or so. That seems a bit more profound than whatever Mercury's affect on Earth is, but such a star would still be invisible to the naked eye.

graay ghost said:

But distance from the Sun and size are not the only things that determine brightness of a celestial object.
Albedo plays a big role as well, which is determined by how much light the materials of the surface/atmosphere reflects.
Uranus has a relatively low albedo.
If Uranus had a similar surface to Venus
it might be
a different story.

Click to expand...

IF ~
but Uranus surface is not similar to Venus
and so it is NOT 'a different story' after all

graay ghost said:

Not to mention it's not that Uranus is not visible from Earth
but that it was so slow moving that it was originally thought to be a star.
Dim stars tend to not get much attention. Once you realize they're moving all hell breaks loose.

Click to expand...

That's misleading because irrespective of slowness of movement
in fact Uranus is not easily visible with unaided vision
that's the reason it was not 'discovered' until 13 March 1781

graay ghost said:

I guess the real question is, if astronomy found something that is not visible to the naked eye out there in space
that has a very profound effect on life on earth, would astrologers use it?
I'm talking Nemesis-hypothesis levels of profound.
We've pretty much confirmed that there's no Nemesis,
but if there was,
there'd be a celestial body that we can't see that's indirectly responsible for mass extinctions every 26-27 million years or so.
That seems a bit more profound than whatever Mercury's affect on Earth is, but such a star would still be invisible to the naked eye.

Click to expand...

To discuss the possible effects of a non-existent celestial body
is theoretical

Well, this gave me pause.

The total mass of all asteroids in the solar system is about 1/2000th the mass of our Moon. And, asteroids, as percentage of mass in the solar system rate only a little above dust.

Studying the differences between Modern and Traditional astrology I agree with the argument that modern techniques need to have some basis to previous astrological thought to be considered seriously by the greater body of astrologers.

Take this a step further and consider in physics and natural law there is the theory called The Order of Importance. The Sun can project a solar flare that can touch the magnet field surrounding the Earth. Moon and Mars has gravitational force. It is conceivable that Moon/Sun/Earth exert a powerful effect on us. The idea that an asteroid can have the same power as any planetary configuration is a concept that defies The Order of Importance and I can understand why many have no respect for the practice.

Part of my practice in studying asteroids is to look to the chart and find the concept behind the asteroid that I feel so strongly, using only traditional methods. I'm discovering there is the planetary configuration showing the event. For example, finding Juno in my second house I went looking for evidence amongst traditional methods to show financial security from my marriage. I had to go to Lilly to discover my Venus (7th house ruler) applying a sextile to 2nd house ruler describes such a scenario. (I didn't feel too dumb because a well known traditional astrologer was using the 2nd house ruler Jupiter in 5th house and I knew my kids or any 5th house meanings gave me financial security.)

Still am fascinated why it works.

Moondance

JUPITERASC said:

The misunderstanding appears to be that some modern astrologers are unaware
that asteroids reflect such a miniscule quantity of light from the sun
that they are visible ONLY with the use of powerful telescopes ~ unless passing close to earth
in which case powerful binoculars could be sufficient:

outer planets are at such vast distances from our sun that they also reflect very little of the sun's light
that's why they are invisible without the use of powerful and expensive telescopes.
however
keep in mind that the more powerful telescopes are more expensive

Click to expand...

No, JA-- this isn't it at all, as I explained in a recent post. You need to stop thinking that naked-eye astronomy is what matters in modern astrology. It isn't.

How many traditional astrologers go outside to view the planets? When they want to cast a horoscope, they use an ephemeris, which these days is probably part of their software. They don't go outside and look up to see what degree Saturn is in, more particularly during broad daylight or when Saturn is below the horizon.

You could do a lifetime of traditional astrology without ever seeing the night sky. You would do what traditional astrologers of centuries past did: use an ephemeris.

I don't need an expensive powerful telescope. I'm happy to rely on NASA and professional astronomers around the world. I also just got an app that allows me to locate stars and planets via my cell phone. Pretty cool.

I might ask Santa to bring me a "starter" telescope that retails for a few hundred dollars.

and also
there is a great difference between simply going out to one's backyard at night
glancing skywards and clearly and easily being able to observe the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn

and
going out to one's backyard on a clear starry night yet being unable to view asteroids or outer planets
simply because the only binoculars and/or telescopes one can afford are not sufficiently powerful

Click to expand...

You previously explained how light- and air pollution were hindrances to urban astrologers, anyhow. So shall we scrap this unproductive "naked eye" issue? Not only do we not need to see visible planets with the naked eye to do astrology-- we couldn't go outside and simply cast a horoscope that way. Hey, JA-- you try it.

On-line Dictionary Definition of the word orthodox* is as follows:

.....4. Adhering to what is commonly accepted, customary, or traditional: an orthodox view of world affairs.
.....

Click to expand...

As you know, this is the definition I was using. Why muddy the waters with a big digression?

The question is
not only whether asteroids reflect solar light
but also the quantity of solar light asteroids reflect

quite simply, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn reflect far more light than asteroids and outer planets do

why?
Because Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn are closer to our sun than asteroids and outer planets
asteroids simply do not reflect as much light as Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn do

Click to expand...

There is no question of whether asteroids reflect solar light. Yes, they do.

The amount of light reflected is not a criterion of either traditional or modern astrology, because reflectance strengths were determined long after traditional horoscopic astrology was developed.

Moreover, these values probably don't match up the way you think they do. Some stars and meteorites have higher visual magnitudes than some of the traditional planets. The moon's brightness varies with phase.

http://www.icq.eps.harvard.edu/MagScale.html
http://www.go-astronomy.com/articles/magnitude-scale.htm

But let's get real about this. Modern astrologers really don't care about your naked-eye astronomy. Unless we also happen to have a parallel "backyard astronomy" hobby. Some of us use asteroids, some of us don't.

JUPITERASC said:

IF ~
but Uranus surface is not similar to Venus
and so it is NOT 'a different story' after all

That's misleading because irrespective of slowness of movement
in fact Uranus is not easily visible with unaided vision
that's the reason it was not 'discovered' until 13 March 1781

To discuss the possible effects of a non-existent celestial body
is theoretical

Click to expand...

JA, if you cannot "unpeel the onion" a few layers deeper, to explain exactly why you think naked-eye visibility is the sine qua non of astrology, then I question your motives for participating on a thread about asteroids.

I don't think you've ever used them for horoscope interpretation, so it would be hard for you to conclude whether they work or not.

waybread said:

No, JA-- this isn't it at all, as I explained in a recent post. You need to stop thinking that naked-eye astronomy is what matters in modern astrology. It isn't.

How many traditional astrologers go outside to view the planets? When they want to cast a horoscope, they use an ephemeris, which these days is probably part of their software. They don't go outside and look up to see what degree Saturn is in, more particularly during broad daylight or when Saturn is below the horizon.

You could do a lifetime of traditional astrology without ever seeing the night sky. You would do what traditional astrologers of centuries past did: use an ephemeris.

I don't need an expensive powerful telescope. I'm happy to rely on NASA and professional astronomers around the world. I also just got an app that allows me to locate stars and planets via my cell phone. Pretty cool.

I might ask Santa to bring me a "starter" telescope that retails for a few hundred dollars.



You previously explained how light- and air pollution were hindrances to urban astrologers, anyhow. So shall we scrap this unproductive "naked eye" issue? Not only do we not need to see visible planets with the naked eye to do astrology-- we couldn't go outside and simply cast a horoscope that way. Hey, JA-- you try it.



As you know, this is the definition I was using. Why muddy the waters with a big digression?

There is no question of whether asteroids reflect solar light. Yes, they do.

The amount of light reflected is not a criterion of either traditional or modern astrology, because reflectance strengths were determined long after traditional horoscopic astrology was developed.

Moreover, these values probably don't match up the way you think they do. Some stars and meteorites have higher visual magnitudes than some of the traditional planets. The moon's brightness varies with phase.

http://www.icq.eps.harvard.edu/MagScale.html
http://www.go-astronomy.com/articles/magnitude-scale.htm

But let's get real about this. Modern astrologers really don't care about your naked-eye astronomy. Unless we also happen to have a parallel "backyard astronomy" hobby. Some of us use asteroids, some of us don't.

Click to expand...

Certainly asteroids reflect solar light ~ just as tiny specks of dust also reflect some solar light

Moondancing said:

Well, this gave me pause.

The total mass of all asteroids in the solar system is about 1/2000th the mass of our Moon.
And, asteroids, as percentage of mass in the solar system rate only a little above dust.


Studying the differences between Modern and Traditional astrology I agree with the argument that modern techniques need to have some basis to previous astrological thought to be considered seriously by the greater body of astrologers.


Take this a step further and consider in physics and natural law there is the theory called The Order of Importance.
The Sun can project a solar flare that can touch the magnet field surrounding the Earth.
Moon and Mars has gravitational force. It is conceivable that Moon/Sun/Earth exert a powerful effect on us.
The idea that an asteroid can have the same power as any planetary configuration is a concept that defies The Order of Importance
and I can understand why many have no respect for the practice.


Part of my practice in studying asteroids is to look to the chart and find the concept behind the asteroid that I feel so strongly, using only traditional methods.
I'm discovering there is the planetary configuration showing the event.
For example, finding Juno in my second house I went looking for evidence amongst traditional methods to show financial security from my marriage.
I had to go to Lilly to discover my Venus (7th house ruler) applying a sextile to 2nd house ruler describes such a scenario.
(I didn't feel too dumb because a well known traditional astrologer was using the 2nd house ruler Jupiter in 5th house
and I knew my kids or any 5th house meanings gave me financial security.)

Still am fascinated why it works.

Moondance

Click to expand...

Moondance, nobody knows how or why astrology works.

One important point, however, is that it has little to do with visible magnitude, beyond a crude level. In Hellenistic astrology, the ascendant was more important than the sun as identifying the "me" point in the horoscope; and the sun more typically referred to one's monarch or father. The rising degree was often paired with a conjunct fixed star or planet that supposedly guided the person throughout his life, for good or ill. The part of fortune ("Fortuna") was extremely important, to the extent that astrologers erected special charts setting the P of F to the first house, in order to predict one's success or ignominy in life.

No causality model for astrology has ever passed a logic sniff-test.

I tend to take a holistic view towards humans and the cosmos. We are not separate entities, but together we form a holistic unit. Obviously, what we believe influences how we are even capable of measuring and interpreting the heavens.

Astrologer Geoffrey Cornelius argued that astrology was a form of divination. Many astrologers of the past believed this, as well. I think this viewpoint bears further exploration. However, I am more inclined to see astrology as a discipline that helps us to unlock latent "psi" abilities. The ancient Graeco-Roman myths resonate today because they are metaphors and allegories for human experience-- in which we all partake.

If the study of asteroids helps you to make more sense of your life, or to help others, I say, "More power to your wheel."

I do wonder, if anyone who does think that asteroid aspects matter, would have any thoughts of Pallas in Sagittarius as the point of a yod between Mars in Taurus and Sun in Cancer, with orbs of about 1 degree.

I would use only actual planets (Pluto OK) in aspect patterns like the yod, not asteroids, angles, or sensitive points. But again, I pretty much stick to the conjunction with asteroids.

I guess I keep trying to look up sources and they say things like "prominent [insert asteroid here]", and considering asteroids do not have sign associations (Chiron maybe), aside from like conjunction to angles, aspects would be the main thing that makes an asteroid "prominent."

waybread said:

I would use only actual planets (Pluto OK) in aspect patterns like the yod, not asteroids, angles, or sensitive points. But again, I pretty much stick to the conjunction with asteroids.

Click to expand...

Hold on to your hat! In Wescott's book 'Mechanics of the Future - Asteroids' she says "The only thing that separates the use of asteroids from planets is the meaning! All the other techniques with which you are familiar remain the same."

She notes that "major configurations involving asteroids may not rank with those of purely planetary composition" but she delineates them, and the focal point of the yod has been a planet from what I've seen so far.

Graay ghost: It isn't often you see her use signs with asteroids. The emphasis on signs and houses comes from first studying the natal chart, before adding asteroids. In regards to Pallas she does say to evaluate both sign and house position to understand its effect. Such as a Sagittarius Pallas might have used philosophy to gain father's attention and a 12th house Pallas may have felt exploited by his efforts to gain approval. Add the meanings of Mars and Sun from your understanding of your natal chart to Pallas and you see a fuller picture of how you use Pallas.


Moondance