Question on out of sign aspects and orb of influence

Z

zenith

Well-known member
I have been learning aspects. I run into this question of out of sign aspects. For example for a square between a late degree Aries mars and an early degree Leo sun, they are both fire signs that supposes to support each other, but they are in square aspect which suppose to challenge each other. I tried to find some info on the internet but very little was available, so in your expertise how do you see this conflicting relationship?

This also lead me to ask the question of the orb of influence of the Planets itself. Some very effective astrologers believe a sign is a sign, so when that planet fall into that sign, it is that sign, there is no such thing of a cusp sign. For example the sun, it is that sign regardless of the degree. Where as other astrologer believe the Cusp power of planets do exist. what are your expert opinion on this? It seems when consider the orbs of influence in an aspect relationships, orbs are considered, difference been the degrees, but planetary influence itself are considered, where as decants or faces of the planets are considered regardless of the sign cusps next to it, but that influential cusps itself is ignored... to me this is bit of confusing...

Thank you for all your insights in advance.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
zenith said:
I have been learning aspects. I run into this question of out of sign aspects. For example for a square between a late degree Aries mars and an early degree Leo sun, they are both fire signs that supposes to support each other, but they are in square aspect which suppose to challenge each other. I tried to find some info on the internet but very little was available, so in your expertise how do you see this conflicting relationship?

This also lead me to ask the question of the orb of influence of the Planets itself. Some very effective astrologers believe a sign is a sign, so when that planet fall into that sign, it is that sign, there is no such thing of a cusp sign. For example the sun, it is that sign regardless of the degree. Where as other astrologer believe the Cusp power of planets do exist. what are your expert opinion on this? It seems when consider the orbs of influence in an aspect relationships, orbs are considered, difference been the degrees, but planetary influence itself are considered, where as decants or faces of the planets are considered regardless of the sign cusps next to it, but that influential cusps itself is ignored... to me this is bit of confusing...

Thank you for all your insights in advance.
Click to expand...
TABLE TO SHOW ORBS FOR ASPECTUAL CONTACT http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspectorbs.html :smile:

QUOTE:

"...My own opinion is that the standard list, (indicated above by emboldened type) is sufficient for most purposes, particularly in being representative of the orbs upon which an influence can be relied to express itself. However, I will acknowledge an aspect within the range of the wider orbs if the planetary contact is of great significance to the chart and the planets are strong by angularity or other fortifying factors...."

THE CLASSICAL ORIGIN AND TRADITIONAL USE OF ASPECTS by Deborah Houlding http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspects.html#mo includes a section on "MOIETY OF THE ORB"
 
D

dr. farr

Well-known member
My opinions:
-I do not consider out of sign aspects
-I do consider trans-sign conjunctions (technically conjunctions are not "aspects")
-I give significant attention to Parallels of declination
-I use tight orbs (5 degrees pretty much is my limit)-for Parallels, 1.5 degrees to 2 degrees maximum; for conjunctions with stars, maximum of 3 degrees
-I have a special consideration of which sign a planet at the border ("cusp") of the sign is in: generally, if a planet is within 10 minutes of 0 degrees of the next sign, I will count that planet as in that next sign especially IF the elemental nature of the planet and of the next sign are the SAME, although I will still also count it as in the previous sign, but at a "lesser intensity" level
-I use whole sign houses, so the borders ("cusps" as commonly-but incorrectly-termed) are always 0 degrees (and 29:59)
 
Z

zenith

Well-known member
JUPITERASC said:
TABLE TO SHOW ORBS FOR ASPECTUAL CONTACT http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspectorbs.html :smile:

QUOTE:

"...My own opinion is that the standard list, (indicated above by emboldened type) is sufficient for most purposes, particularly in being representative of the orbs upon which an influence can be relied to express itself. However, I will acknowledge an aspect within the range of the wider orbs if the planetary contact is of great significance to the chart and the planets are strong by angularity or other fortifying factors...."

THE CLASSICAL ORIGIN AND TRADITIONAL USE OF ASPECTS by Deborah Houlding http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspects.html#mo includes a section on "MOIETY OF THE ORB"
Click to expand...

Thank you Jupiterasc, within the article you linked there is another link to an article on aspects actually went into details on out-sign and in-sign aspects, it's very informative, thank you. :smile:

Here is the link in case someone else would also be asking this question:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspects.html
 
Z

zenith

Well-known member
dr. farr said:
My opinions:
-I do not consider out of sign aspects
-I do consider trans-sign conjunctions (technically conjunctions are not "aspects")
-I give significant attention to Parallels of declination
-I use tight orbs (5 degrees pretty much is my limit)-for Parallels, 1.5 degrees to 2 degrees maximum; for conjunctions with stars, maximum of 3 degrees
-I have a special consideration of which sign a planet at the border ("cusp") of the sign is in: generally, if a planet is within 10 minutes of 0 degrees of the next sign, I will count that planet as in that next sign especially IF the elemental nature of the planet and of the next sign are the SAME, although I will still also count it as in the previous sign, but at a "lesser intensity" level
-I use whole sign houses, so the borders ("cusps" as commonly-but incorrectly-termed) are always 0 degrees (and 29:59)
Click to expand...

Thank you Dr. Farr for your insight, the elemental nature of the planet in consideration of the next sign within 10 min of 0 degrees is something very new to me, thank you, I've learned something new here, do you use the same consideration with house? consider it would be the same as signs in whole sign house?
 
Lion o ness

Lion o ness

Well-known member
I have a wide square with 26leo mars sq 2sag Neptune...

I would say the energy is there, but its weak... I'm don't have the typical drug, drinking addictions...
I do have a very strong sensitivity to medication, and I have a soft spot of Neptune type of guys... Euhhhh...

I have an out of sign t square, with a tighter orb,,,

Venus 2 can, Pluto 0 libra, Jupiter 28sag
H4. H7. H10

This energy is very strong for me, it's my biggest problem.. It effects all my relationships, home, romance, work....
Euhhhhhhhhhh.... Blahhh
 
Moog

Moog

Well-known member
Yeah, I tend to think of orbs as wide and smoothly tapering. They don't just cut off at a certain distance. They are just weaker.

I perceive it that every planet is influencing every other planet. It's just at certain spots in relationship to each other, they create more extreme effects.
 
F

Frisiangal

Well-known member
zenith said:
I have been learning aspects. I run into this question of out of sign aspects. For example for a square between a late degree Aries mars and an early degree Leo sun, they are both fire signs that supposes to support each other, but they are in square aspect which suppose to challenge each other. I tried to find some info on the internet but very little was available, so in your expertise how do you see this conflicting relationship?
Click to expand...

The signs of the same element only support each other in terms of their temperament, yet the temperament is expressed differently through the individual character of each sign.
Aries is a cardinal sign; Leo is a fixed sign. It is Aries that ignites the fire of an idea, yet it's Leo that holds on to that idea, keeps it burning, and gives it a creative form. Aries is spontaneity; it has no staying power. Leo will continue to keep the creation alive long after Aries has moved on towards something new.

In an out of sign Fire square, the eagerness of Aries comes up against the stay put dominance of Leo. Aries may try to push Leo into DOING something new, OR, Leo will WANT to keep Aries from acting rashly. That doesn't happen when there's a trine aspect between them; .....unless an out of sign square from righteous mutable Sagittarius puts a spoke in the Fire wheel in its belief that the idea really should be improved and expanded upon.:smile:

You can do something similar with all the (planets in) signs, according to the temperament of character through triplicity or quadriplicity. Just think of them as people who, because of their differences, may not seem to get along with each other, yet can do if they allow mutual understanding to become the teacher. :wink:

My 1/2 cent's worth.
Click to expand...
 
Claire19

Claire19

Well-known member
out of sign aspects or dissociate are weaker because of the more scattered energies. THe orb would have to be quite tight, within 3 degrees in my opinion. good question!!
 
Claire19

Claire19

Well-known member
Moog said:
Yeah, I tend to think of orbs as wide and smoothly tapering. They don't just cut off at a certain distance. They are just weaker.

I perceive it that every planet is influencing every other planet. It's just at certain spots in relationship to each other, they create more extreme effects.
Click to expand...
If you perceive that all planets are influencing each other then you wont be able to discern what influences are at play which is the whole point of astrology and the aspects used. Orbs are a debatable question but I never use more than about 8 degrees with the Sun and Moon and less with the other planets.
 
M

may28gemini

I agree with Moog. I don't think contact of energies just get cut off at say, 5 degrees on the dot. Or 8, etc. It makes more sense to me that the energies wane. I think it depends on the planets in question as to how the energies get expressed and how much of it is strengthened or weakened. To me, there aren't any hard or fast rules as to how determine what aspect is solely responsible for what trait as all the planets in a person's chart influence the others.

I have 29 Gemini Mercury square 0 Libra Jupiter and square 3 Libra Saturn. I also have late Taurus Mars trine early Libra Jupiter and Saturn. As far as what I think of it... my out of sign aspects are pretty close so my experience with those 4 aspects are strongly felt.

The Mercury square Jupiter and Saturn have done damage that got me into trouble but then again, Mars trine Saturn and Jupiter gave me a lot of fortitude and optimism to get me out of trouble. I think what I have sort of just evens out.
 
D

dr. farr

Well-known member
Right, energies don't just get cut-off (or end) at x number of degrees distance; I too, believe that the influence becomes less and less, and in delineation, since I want to determine the most significant ("more influential") potential influences, I use small orbs (in the astro.com chart erection page, I almost always put "50" into the "reduce or enlarge" orbs box (thereby reducing the standard astro.com orbs by half) Not saying that small orbs are best, except for ME, they are "best"-I like clearcut indications, so I prefer these smaller orbs (actually, though, regarding declinations I tend to use "large" orbs-many give a maximum of 1 degree for Parallel, yet I regularly use 1.5 degrees to 2 degrees, as my maximum for Parallels of declination; same with my use of stars: quite a few give no more than 1 or 2 degrees for conjunction with a star; I'll extend that up to 3 degrees for 1st magnitude stars)
 
F

Frisiangal

Well-known member
Astrological calculation teaches that planets 'are in aspect' when they are exact, according to the type of aspect. I have always understood that they 'are in orb' when they are within so many degrees of that exact aspect. To my mind, the 'in orb' measurement is already stretching or diminishing the length of the aspect rope, according to whether the aspect is applying or separating. How can you stretch the given rope even further than its widest allowed length and still expect the planets to act in the same way towards each other? At some time the arm in arm link is going to change to holding hands, to finger-tip contact and on to actually being out of reach of each other's function, whereby each planet is going to function independently of the other. The one planet may look on the side line and can see what's going on, yet it will not be able to interfere or influence the game the other planet is playing.
It happens all the time in real life.:smile:
 
Top