Astrologers' Community  

Go Back   Astrologers' Community > General Astrology > Traditional Astrology

Traditional Astrology For discussions on Traditional Astrology only. (Note: Typically, traditional astrology is defined as using techniques developed prior to 1700 by astrologers from the Hellenistic, Persian, Hebrew, and Renaissance eras. In general, it relies on Ptolemaic aspects (sextile, trine, square, opposition and conjunction) though there may be some exceptions, and always excludes modern planets (Neptune, Uranus and Pluto,) as well as any asteroids. The focus is less on what would be considered modern psychological chart interpretation and more on prediction. Members who wish to explore a combination of traditional and modern ideas should feel free to start a new thread in an appropriate forum for further discussion.)


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 12-18-2019, 12:50 PM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 3,398
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?

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 12-18-2019, 05:21 PM
Tiarus Tiarus is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 24
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 12-18-2019, 05:43 PM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 3,398
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiarus View Post
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.
Why does the number of degree matter then, and how much?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 12-18-2019, 06:35 PM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 3,398
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

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.

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 12-18-2019, 06:39 PM
Tiarus Tiarus is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 24
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
Why does the number of degree matter then, and how much?


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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 12-18-2019, 06:43 PM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 3,398
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiarus View Post
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.
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''.

Last edited by petosiris; 12-18-2019 at 07:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 12-18-2019, 06:52 PM
Tiarus Tiarus is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 24
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

This is Dykes' comment from Hephaistio.
Attached Images
File Type: png rr.png (388.2 KB, 8 views)
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 12-18-2019, 06:55 PM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 3,398
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiarus View Post
This is Dykes' comment from Hephaistio.
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/viewto...r=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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 12-18-2019, 07:02 PM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 3,398
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

Quote:
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.
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?

Last edited by petosiris; 12-18-2019 at 07:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 12-18-2019, 07:22 PM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 3,398
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Unread 12-18-2019, 07:24 PM
Tiarus Tiarus is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 24
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Unread 12-18-2019, 07:36 PM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 3,398
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiarus View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by petosiris; 12-18-2019 at 07:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 12-19-2019, 01:27 AM
AJ Astrology AJ Astrology is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 293
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
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?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiarus View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 12-19-2019, 01:37 AM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 3,398
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

Quote:
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.
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?

Last edited by petosiris; 12-19-2019 at 02:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 12-19-2019, 05:01 AM
Kite's Avatar
Kite Kite is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tied to a string theory
Posts: 722
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

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.
__________________
Simple ain't easy.
-----Thelonius Monk

Chart
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 12-19-2019, 09:10 AM
Tiarus Tiarus is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 24
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ Astrology View Post

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.

Hi, AJ

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



Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris
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.

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:

Quote:
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.

So, I believe Sun at 30°Ar and Jupiter at 1°Ca will complete whatever they promise, when the time comes.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 12-21-2019, 07:24 PM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 3,398
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kite View Post
I've read the signs as having hard boundaries.
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.

Quote:
As far as the sign aspects with very wide orbs -- the jury is still out though I feel the elemental affinities are important.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Unread 12-21-2019, 08:01 PM
Kite's Avatar
Kite Kite is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tied to a string theory
Posts: 722
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
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.
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/...FDMjEiUbW8U6Mo
__________________
Simple ain't easy.
-----Thelonius Monk

Chart
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 12-21-2019, 08:13 PM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 3,398
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kite View Post
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/...FDMjEiUbW8U6Mo
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.

Last edited by petosiris; 12-21-2019 at 08:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Unread 02-11-2020, 12:55 AM
Bunraku's Avatar
Bunraku Bunraku is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 4,475
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

The concept of VoC Moon implies things about out of sign aspects.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Unread 02-11-2020, 04:48 AM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 3,398
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunraku View Post
The concept of VoC Moon implies things about out of sign aspects.
Isn't Porphyry's/Rhetorius's VoC not completing an aspect in the next 30 degrees regardless of sign boundaries? That implies something about out of sign aspects

Last edited by petosiris; 02-11-2020 at 04:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Unread 02-11-2020, 06:05 AM
Bunraku's Avatar
Bunraku Bunraku is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 4,475
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
Isn't Porphyry's/Rhetorius's VoC not completing an aspect in the next 30 degrees regardless of sign boundaries? That implies something about out of sign aspects
Depends who's asking!
(See attachment)
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Morin.jpg (47.0 KB, 6 views)
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Unread 02-12-2020, 08:30 AM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 3,398
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

Quote:
Originally Posted by david starling View Post
Is declination a factor?
Why would it be?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Unread 02-12-2020, 11:43 AM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 3,398
Re: Whole Sign Aspects

Quote:
Originally Posted by david starling View Post
None of the ancient astrologers took declination into account to determine the strength of an Aspect? Or, a Conjunction?
I was asking you why?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
aspects, sign

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 04:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2018, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.