Whole Sign Aspects

1. If planets aspect degrees, then signs shouldn't matter.
2. If planets aspect signs, then degrees shouldn't matter.

If 1. is true, then Sun at 30 Aries is in conjunction with Mercury at 1 Taurus.
If 2. is true, then Sun at 30 Aries is disjunct from Mercury at 1 Taurus.

If 1. is true, then Sun at 30 Aries is in sextile with Jupiter at 1 Cancer.
If 2. is true, then Sun at 30 Aries is in square with Jupiter at 1 Cancer.

Can a person hold that both statements are correct?
Which one seems more reasonable to you and why?

The truth is out there


Signs matters most in my opinion. Aspects nature is changing according to planets sign positions. Although number of degrees between planets in aspect can tell us how intensive that aspect is, signs nature determines whether aspect is concordant or not.

Tiarus said:

The truth is out there


Signs matters most in my opinion. Aspects nature is changing according to planets sign positions. Although number of degrees between planets in aspect can tell us how intensive that aspect is, signs nature determines whether aspect is concordant or not.

Click to expand...

Why does the number of degree matter then, and how much?

Each planet is placed in a sign, aspects seven signs and is disjunct from four signs, so that every planet is configured with 240° and disjunct from 120°. If we follow the visual rays of the planets, they do not always fall at the middle of the signs, but sometimes at the beginning, as it is the case with this Jupiter.

petosiris said:

Why does the number of degree matter then, and how much?

Click to expand...

The closer the better. We need degrees to determine whether aspect is getting stronger or weaker. That's in general.
In your first example, I would consider the Sun-Mercury relation as conjunction by degree which is getting rapidly weaker. They are too close together, as Sun is already at the door looking at Mercury. But if Sun is at 25°Ar, I wouldn't say they are conjunct.
I'm allowing 3° for out of sign relations, especially if planets are applying.

I believe Antiochus said something about this, maybe I'm wrong. I should check.

Tiarus said:

The closer the better. We need degrees to determine whether aspect is getting stronger or weaker. That's in general.
In your first example, I would consider the Sun-Mercury relation as conjunction by degree which is getting rapidly weaker. They are too close together, as Sun is already at the door looking at Mercury. But if Sun is at 25°Ar, I wouldn't say they are conjunct.
I'm allowing 3° for out of sign relations, especially if planets are applying.

I believe Antiochus said something about this, maybe I'm wrong. I should check.

Click to expand...

The Hellenistic astrologers almost never discuss this problem. There are only two sources I know that speak of this problem (Firmicus and a commentator on Porphyry), and they say applications and separations are blocked by different signs. Thus they would not agree with Chris Brennan and his loose interpretation of the 3° rule, which allows for mixture of the two theories.

All Medieval astrologers would reiterate the sign blocking (especially in horary) until the time of Ibn Ezra who says that he ''disagrees with all the ancients''.

This is Dykes' comment from Hephaistio.

Tiarus said:

This is Dykes' comment from Hephaistio.

Click to expand...

See the Levente's comment down below on another forum. Some of the Hellenistic astrologers excluded the possibility of degree aspect with different signs.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10349&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

Antiochus' surviving works do not refer to this question, so we can't tell whether it refers to applications and separations within the same signs and different signs, or only within the same signs.

The closer the better. We need degrees to determine whether aspect is getting stronger or weaker. That's in general.
In your first example, I would consider the Sun-Mercury relation as conjunction by degree which is getting rapidly weaker. They are too close together, as Sun is already at the door looking at Mercury. But if Sun is at 25°Ar, I wouldn't say they are conjunct.
I'm allowing 3° for out of sign relations, especially if planets are applying.

I believe Antiochus said something about this, maybe I'm wrong. I should check.

Click to expand...

Why do you need degrees if the sign element is what is important?

How do aspects/configurations work? Are they configurations of the signs of the planets or of the rays of the planets?

Also if sign element and gender matter, shouldn't terms, decans or other divisions be applied as well?

This is the contrary proposition:



This seems more unreasonable to me, if Jupiter was at the end of the sign, then he would aspect the same 240 degrees preceding Jupiter and his rays, just as he aspects the same 240 degrees in the above scheme, except that they follow Jupiter and his rays.

I need degrees in those out of sign relations especially. If planets are in square by degrees but in trine by whole signs there is concordance between them. And vice versa.
Sorry, I would like to elaborate more, but english is not my native language so composing sentences which include technical stuff is an obstacle for me.

Tiarus said:

I need degrees in those out of sign relations especially. If planets are in square by degrees but in trine by whole signs there is concordance between them. And vice versa.
Sorry, I would like to elaborate more, but english is not my native language so composing sentences which include technical stuff is an obstacle for me.

Click to expand...

I think you are trying to say that the aspect's power quickly drops when there is no concordance between signs, with this you reiterate that you give more importance to point 2. than to point 1.

But I've never seen one express and develop this doctrine lucidly. I think this has to do with apparent contradictions and excess of ingredients in the cosmic soup, that even trying to develop ranges, seems disconcerting.

petosiris said:

1. If planets aspect degrees, then signs shouldn't matter.
2. If planets aspect signs, then degrees shouldn't matter.

If 1. is true, then Sun at 30 Aries is in conjunction with Mercury at 1 Taurus.
If 2. is true, then Sun at 30 Aries is disjunct from Mercury at 1 Taurus.

If 1. is true, then Sun at 30 Aries is in sextile with Jupiter at 1 Cancer.
If 2. is true, then Sun at 30 Aries is in square with Jupiter at 1 Cancer.

Can a person hold that both statements are correct?
Which one seems more reasonable to you and why?

Click to expand...

Hi petosiris,

I think you misunderstand the meaning and application.

When a body is not domiciled, it is important for that body to aspect the sign it rules. Some authorities suggest it's important or even more important to aspect the sign of exaltation.

That has to do with the body's influence on the house/sign it rules.

Jupiter inconjunct Pisces is not the same as Cancer Jupiter, because Cancer Jupiter trines his house. He can see what's going on and exercise influence over the affairs of that house and the bodies in it.

Aspects between bodies produces another result entirely and it's the influence of a body on another body.

Degrees do matter, because the whole theory is predicated on the rays of one body intersecting with another body.

In the case of moiety, it's the rays of one body intersecting with the rays of another body.

That's why Sun and Moon have larger orbs, because their rays are more powerful than the other bodies.

Tiarus said:

The closer the better. We need degrees to determine whether aspect is getting stronger or weaker. That's in general.
In your first example, I would consider the Sun-Mercury relation as conjunction by degree which is getting rapidly weaker. They are too close together, as Sun is already at the door looking at Mercury. But if Sun is at 25°Ar, I wouldn't say they are conjunct.
I'm allowing 3° for out of sign relations, especially if planets are applying.

I believe Antiochus said something about this, maybe I'm wrong. I should check.

Click to expand...

Hi Tiarus,

A conjunction is not a true aspect. Think of it this way, especially since it's Winter:

You and I are on a bobsled. We are joined together, yeah, conjunct, and we are working together as one to steer the bobsled and win a Gold Medal.

But what if we were inconjunct? I can't see you, you can't see me, I can't help you, and you can't help me.

What if I was opposite you heading right at you? I'm not on your bobsled, I'm on my own. That probably wouldn't work out too well for either of us.

What if I was trine to you? I could yell or signal to you whether you're ahead or behind and what you need to do to make things work. I can't do it for you, because I'm not on the bobsled with you, but I can help you.

And if I was square to you? I could warn you about a sharp icy curve coming up, or if I was really cruel, throw snowballs at you in hopes that you would wreck. Of course, you're alone on the bobsled so you do the wrecking, not me. I just create the circumstances for you to wreck.

If I was sextile, I could probably only yell words of encouragement to you.

See?

When two bodies join together as in a conjunction, they are combining all of their strengths and weaknesses together as one.

When they are in aspect, they are only imparting an influence, good or bad on the other body.

I think you misunderstand the meaning and application.

When a body is not domiciled, it is important for that body to aspect the sign it rules. Some authorities suggest it's important or even more important to aspect the sign of exaltation.

That has to do with the body's influence on the house/sign it rules.

Jupiter inconjunct Pisces is not the same as Cancer Jupiter, because Cancer Jupiter trines his house. He can see what's going on and exercise influence over the affairs of that house and the bodies in it.

Aspects between bodies produces another result entirely and it's the influence of a body on another body.

Degrees do matter, because the whole theory is predicated on the rays of one body intersecting with another body.

In the case of moiety, it's the rays of one body intersecting with the rays of another body.

That's why Sun and Moon have larger orbs, because their rays are more powerful than the other bodies.

Click to expand...

Hey AJ, I will just note that none of this is present in the surviving Hellenistic sources for reasons I won't go into, but thanks for the information.

So, if I understood you correctly, you think they are entirely blocked by sign boundaries? If not, can you two give me some traditional principles and ranges for when they are, and when they aren't? Like does the moiety get twice smaller or something?

I've read the signs as having hard boundaries. My reasoning is my own anaretic Jupiter which seems locked and bound to Virgo though it's 8 minutes away from Libra. It is central to an out of sign opposition to Mars in the middle of a kite so I'm conscious of the inconjunct.

As far as the sign aspects with very wide orbs -- the jury is still out though I feel the elemental affinities are important.

AJ Astrology said:

Hi Tiarus,

A conjunction is not a true aspect. Think of it this way, especially since it's Winter:

You and I are on a bobsled. We are joined together, yeah, conjunct, and we are working together as one to steer the bobsled and win a Gold Medal.

But what if we were inconjunct? I can't see you, you can't see me, I can't help you, and you can't help me.

What if I was opposite you heading right at you? I'm not on your bobsled, I'm on my own. That probably wouldn't work out too well for either of us.

What if I was trine to you? I could yell or signal to you whether you're ahead or behind and what you need to do to make things work. I can't do it for you, because I'm not on the bobsled with you, but I can help you.

And if I was square to you? I could warn you about a sharp icy curve coming up, or if I was really cruel, throw snowballs at you in hopes that you would wreck. Of course, you're alone on the bobsled so you do the wrecking, not me. I just create the circumstances for you to wreck.

If I was sextile, I could probably only yell words of encouragement to you.

See?

When two bodies join together as in a conjunction, they are combining all of their strengths and weaknesses together as one.

When they are in aspect, they are only imparting an influence, good or bad on the other body.

Click to expand...

Hi, AJ

I understand all that, just having a little problems to put everything correctly in sentences

petosiris said:

I think you are trying to say that the aspect's power quickly drops when there is no concordance between signs, with this you reiterate that you give more importance to point 2. than to point 1.

Click to expand...

Something like that. Planets are still in square but it's kind of "softer" square because planets are sharing signs of the same triplicity.
I haven't read all translated texts, so I'm aware of missing some crucial informations probably.
Close conjunctions you mentioned maybe can't be theoretically approved, but I have found them "working" in practice. In other words, I didn't find those close conjunctions blocked by sign boundaries, especially applying ones.



In his Fifty Aphorisms, Sahl said something about evasion:

Suppose a planet is seeking a connection, but then does not reach it in its sign, so that the planet shifts into the next sign due to its speed. If it reaches it in the next sign and it does not connect with a different one, it acomplishes the thing sought.

Click to expand...

So, I believe Sun at 30°Ar and Jupiter at 1°Ca will complete whatever they promise, when the time comes.

Kite said:

I've read the signs as having hard boundaries.

Click to expand...

I think the signs have clear boundaries, my question is why the boundaries should apply to the planets within them. Obviously a sign is 30° wide, while the luminaries are about 1/2 of a degree, and the five wandering stars much less, though in practice the astrologers only use the centers of the planets, which are philosophically indivisible.

As far as the sign aspects with very wide orbs -- the jury is still out though I feel the elemental affinities are important.

Click to expand...

Why are they questionable? Perhaps the natural difference (say in daylight) and distance (in longitude) between the first and last degree are too large, even though they are displaced by equal distance from the middle of the sign, and so each degree within the sign is tempered by the others (say 15°), though not necessarily by all degrees within the sign (30°).

In the Hellenistic period, the astrologers generally did not work with degrees of the planets, and the crude ephemerides at the time provided only sign ingresses (over 90% of 400 surviving horoscopes are signs of ascendant and planets without any other astronomical information). I think that is the main reason for the usage of whole sign aspects in the Hellenistic period, rather than any physical reason related to opposite seasons or the gender or quadruplicities of the signs, which isn't as impressive as the geometrical configuration, and it is pretty clear that the astrologers imagined visual rays as very important for the explanation.

petosiris said:

I think the signs have clear boundaries, my question is why the boundaries should apply to the planets within them. Obviously a sign is 30° wide, while the luminaries are about 1/2 of a degree, and the five wandering stars much less, though in practice the astrologers only use the centers of the planets, which are philosophically indivisible.



Why are they questionable? Perhaps the natural difference (say in daylight) and distance (in longitude) between the first and last degree are too large, even though they are displaced by equal distance from the middle of the sign, and so each degree within the sign is tempered by the others (say 15°), though not necessarily by all degrees within the sign (30°).

In the Hellenistic period, the astrologers generally did not work with degrees of the planets, and the crude ephemerides at the time provided only sign ingresses (over 90% of 400 surviving horoscopes are signs of ascendant and planets without any other astronomical information). I think that is the main reason for the usage of whole sign aspects in the Hellenistic period, rather than any physical reason related to opposite seasons or the gender or quadruplicities of the signs, which isn't as impressive as the geometrical configuration, and it is pretty clear that the astrologers imagined visual rays as very important for the explanation.

Click to expand...

Degree based aspects didn't seem to come later - sign to sign. I don't recall out of sign degree aspects as having validity. Maybe you can pick out some tidbits in this lecture I spent over 3 hours on yesterday. http://theastrologypodcast.com/2019...8JYuIqp8YwraUsZKOVhNXTAstUOELSbFDMjEiUbW8U6Mo

Kite said:

Degree based aspects didn't seem to come later - sign to sign. I don't recall out of sign degree aspects as having validity. Maybe you can pick out some tidbits in this lecture I spent over 3 hours on yesterday. http://theastrologypodcast.com/2019...8JYuIqp8YwraUsZKOVhNXTAstUOELSbFDMjEiUbW8U6Mo

Click to expand...

You aren't going to have degree based aspects and house systems if you don't have degrees. People following too closely some of the primitive methods, simply because of their antiquity, may miss the big picture and lose touch with reality (I did for a year, because of these blind teachers).

Where the later Hellenistic, Medieval and Renaissance astrologers made sophisticated progress in the physical methods of astronomy and astrology, it has to be admitted, welcomed and prized.

The concept of VoC Moon implies things about out of sign aspects.