How do you interpret oppositions that aren't in opposite signs?

aquarius7000

Well-known member
So, Aquarius7000, two planets in opposition but one at zero degrees and the other 29 degrees of two different signs, you would not consider an opposition ?
Since they will be in two different signs, whose energies and temperaments (how they play out) are not opposing each other, no, I wouldn't. It has nothing to do with degrees for me. It has everything to do with the energies and the temperaments for me - as explained in my earlier post. After all, it is not because of the 29th or 0 degree that the Sun is in detriment or feels uncomfortable in the cold and moist sign of Aquarius, where the fire of the Sun, which represents the ego - singular identity (I, me, mine) struggles to express it self properly. Aquarius is concerned with the expression of the group, thereby dissolving the singularity or ego. Where does the question of degree even arise here? This is why we say that the planet in a sign is coloured by the energy and element of that sign because the element, temperament and energy of the sign is very important to how a planet in that sign functions. Saturn in hot and dry Leo similarly cannot function properly because Leo is concerned about expressing itself uniquely - as if nobody compares to them - the ego is at the forefront, whilst Saturn, which is completely at the mental plane, feels uncomfortable with expressing itself singularly through its heart, putting in forefront its own identity. Saturn likes to stay 'cool' and act responsible. In Aquarius, it is concerned with taking responsibility of the group/ society.

Now, if we were to go by the concept of oppositions being merely a "geometrical" concept, it would mean that the Sun at 29th or 0 degree of Aquarius would feel comfortable, even though it is in the exact opp. sign to its own domicile sign of Leo. However, that is not the case. Sun is uncomfortable in all degrees of Aquarius.

The best way to approach this is to understand first thoroughly the energies and elements of each sign. Then understand the nature of each planet, and then you will be able to comprehend why the planet of a certain nature has difficulty expressing itself in the opposite sign
 
Last edited:

ElenaJ

Well-known member
Thank you for the explanation.
I use the opposition with the idea that two forces of energy are opposed to each other.


"Now, if we were to go by the concept of oppositions being merely a "geometrical" concept, it would mean that the Sun at 29th or ) degree of Aquarius would feel comfortable, even though it is in the exact opp. sign to its own domicile sign of Leo. However, that is not the case. Sun is uncomfortable in all degrees of Aquarius. "

No. Opposition is contrast, there is a difficulty in relating to each other.
 

aquarius7000

Well-known member
Thank you for the explanation.
I use the opposition with the idea that two forces of energy are opposed to each other.


"Now, if we were to go by the concept of oppositions being merely a "geometrical" concept, it would mean that the Sun at 29th or ) degree of Aquarius would feel comfortable, even though it is in the exact opp. sign to its own domicile sign of Leo. However, that is not the case. Sun is uncomfortable in all degrees of Aquarius. "

No. Opposition is contrast, there is a difficulty in relating to each other.
Good point - in bold. Next step is to logically understand - why there is difficulty in relating? Because the temperaments are different, and so the Sun is not able to live itself/ its purpose of singularity (I rule, I am king) out in the sign that lives on the mental level, Aquarius, whose energy serves the purpose of bringing equilibrium and order to the group. That is the reason there is difficulty in relating, not because of the 29* or 0* theory.
 
Last edited:

aquarius7000

Well-known member
Good point - in bold. Next step is to logically understand - why there is difficulty in relating? Because the temperaments are different, and so the Sun is not able to live itself/ its purpose out singularly in the sign that lives on the mental level, Aquarius, whose energy serves the purpose of bringing bring equilibrium and order to the group. That is the reason there is difficulty in relating, not because of the 29* or 0* theory.
After all, if we were to go just by geometry as the concept for opp. etc - we could forget about Horary. In Horary, we don't say Mars is in detriment in Libra because it is at 0* or 29* of Libra. It is in 0* or 29* in Scorpio and Cap also, but why is it not in detriment in Cap; rather on the contrary, it is exalted there.
Same with the Sun, why is Sun not in detriment in Aries, but it is in Aquarius (as explained in multiple posts). Degrees are there in every sign, but Mars or the Sun or Venus does not feel detrimented in 0* of every sign. It is because the energies are different of every sign, and in the sign in opposition to its own domicile's energies, the planet is able to least fulfil its true purpose. Therefore, if a planet thrives (is dignified) in its domicile, how can it not feel uncomfortable in the opposite kind of energy. This really is the fundament of Astrology and key to practise it properly, IMO.
 
Last edited:

aquarius7000

Well-known member
So if a planet is in 0 Aries and another is in 29 virgo, how should we interpret the aspect?
They have no meaning in terms of opposition - this is the short answer - as I have to run and errand and will respond elaborately later.

However, referencing the above posts, in the meanwhile, you might want to have a go yourself and I will chime in later.
 

david starling

Well-known member
They have no meaning in terms of opposition - this is the short answer - as I have to run and errand and will respond elaborately later.

However, referencing the above posts, in the meanwhile, you might want to have a go yourself and I will chime in later.

Their Orb-fields are in opposition. Sign divisions aren't "hermetically sealed" imo. Meaning, that the Orbs are extensions of the longitudinally-located postions, and can have influence in two Signs at once.
 

aquarius7000

Well-known member
Their Orb-fields are in opposition. Sign divisions aren't "hermetically sealed" imo. Meaning, that the Orbs are extensions of the longitudinally-located postions, and can have influence in two Signs at once.
This is still using geometry to justify, which has nothing to do with energies, but since it seems Elena and you use geometry as the justification, I will leave you to it. We are all feel to believe what we want to, so I will end my effort of explaining signs and energies.

It is just always very interesting how people belie their ownselves when trying to do Horary Astrology - where suddenly they use the sign-energy concept, in Horary to say Mars is in detriment in Tau (not because it is in at a certain degree). :)
 
Last edited:

ElenaJ

Well-known member
Following your reasoning, a planet in zero Aries is not conjunct a planet in 29 pisces.
A planet in zero Aries is not squared a planet at 29 sagittarius.
It is difficult to accept the fact that a one degree change in position will annul an aspect, just because it crosses over a sign border.
 

Kannon

Well-known member
From Fred Gettings' book The Arkana Dictionary of Astrology:
Aspects Term applied to a large number of specific angular relationships between planets and other celestical bodies or nodal points.

ElenaJ makes the most important point here: aspects are defined by their arc space relationship. A planet at 29°59' Pisces is always conjunct another planet at 0°00' Aries (or any other similar adjacent sign pair). Under no circumstances are those considered semi-sextile by any tradition or theory.

I would respectfully challenge the assertion that aspects are geometric, if, by that, you mean numerically, or degree based.

In the evolution of astrological thought, I would strongly suggest that aspects first were defined by sign long before geometry/degrees were applied to determine aspect:
That is, conjunctions were in the same sign.
Trines were signs of the same element.
Squares/oppositions were in signs of the same mode [ie, the bodies were all in fixed signs, or all in cardinal signs, etc.]

[deleted attacking comments - Moderator]

Aspects are geometry by their very definition. Just because an astrology student may use the signs as a way of trying to visually locate an aspect on the chart does not change that. A square is always 90°. That's geometry. That it occurs in an astrological context doesn't change it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ElenaJ

Well-known member
It isn't the signs that determine the aspect, it's the degrees.
But the signs involved determine the quality of the energy that is passing between the planets in aspect.

An opposition of two planets at zero Aries and zero libra manifests one way.
An opposition of two planets at zero Aries and 29 virgo manifests in a different way.

[deleted response to attacking comment - Moderator]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

david starling

Well-known member
Well, I'm so Sign-oriented, I think I'll change my mind and agree with Aqua 7000.

Also, from my own personal perspective, I would have a Grand Trine with Sun:pisces:/Jupiter:scorpio:/Saturn:leo: if the degree outweighed the Element, and I'm really not feeling it.
 
Last edited:

!4C

Well-known member
Tsmall once said out-of-sign oppositions are worse than in-sign oppositions because they can't "see each other." If I understood her correctly, they affect each other like an opposition but don't know where it is coming from. The inability to identify the threat means the tension goes unresolved.


I just thought I would throw that in there. :lol:
 

ElenaJ

Well-known member
Tsmall once said out-of-sign oppositions are worse than in-sign oppositions because they can't "see each other." If I understood her correctly, they affect each other like an opposition but don't know where it is coming from. The inability to identify the threat means the tension goes unresolved.


I just thought I would throw that in there. :lol:

This is exactly what happens, and it becomes more difficult to resolve the tension of the opposition.
 

david starling

Well-known member
But why would you call them disconnected? Why do you think they are disconnected as in the cause?

Nothing in common. In a true Opposition, they're of the same Modality and close to the same Sign-degree.

In an out-of-Sign "opposition", they're of different Modality, different Element, and at the extremes of difference in Sign-degree.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Using in-Sign Oppositions = Sign astrology + Aspect astrology


Using out-of-Sign Oppositions = Aspect astrology - Sign astrology

Same as ignoring Aspects in Sign astrology.
 
Last edited:
Top