Does the North Node count in a T-square?

Just a quickie question. It seems I have a T square with my 1st house moon/Mars squaring my Venus 10th house and NN(which conjuncts my IC), but I'm not quite sure if that qualifies as a T-square or not

The north node is a sensitive point in the chart to do with your general life path and any planet that aspects it has a say in the progess that you make in your life and what method you progess in. I think transits cause fate to push you in a certain direction when it contacts the north node.

Very timely thread for me, because I recall seeing somewhere that the North Node was once accorded Sign-rulership of Gemini, especially at the 3 degree point. Anyone know anything about this? Ties in nicely with Mercury, ancient god of travellers, when the Nodes are seen as being about travelling one's "Life-path".

While I think this is most certainly an important configuration [especially if Venus also conjuncts the SN?], I believe that only bodies formally make up planetary configurations, such as the t-square.
And lunar nodes are points and not bodies: they are the intersection of the earth's orbit around the sun with the Moon's orbit around earth, if I recall correctly...

IleneK said:

While I think this is most certainly an important configuration [especially if Venus also conjuncts the SN?], I believe that only bodies formally make up planetary configurations, such as the t-square.
And lunar nodes are points and not bodies: they are the intersection of the earth's orbit around the sun with the Moon's orbit around earth, if I recall correctly...

Click to expand...

Ah, my favorite topic at the moment: Can "measured points" rule Signs? The supposed locations of the Moon and Planets ARE "measured points"! That is, unless the Moon or Planet is at its node, which would place it within the plane of the Ecliptic, which is our astrological plane of measurement. What you see in a Chart is almost always the measured intersection of a line of Celestial Longitude running through a celestial object, not the object itself.
Also, I do recall reading somewhere that the NN was accorded rulership of Gemini. Or, perhaps Exalted in Gemini, not sure which.

It comes down to the "correlation/causation" relationship. Meaning, is it the celestial object itself, sending a signal that somehow attaches to a line of longitude and causes an Astrological effect? Or, is it our perception of the correlations themselves, which enable us to discern causation? If it's the latter, then a "measured point" could be an important enough indicator to provide major, discernable correlations.
I'm using the Ascendant as a Sign-ruler, because it's one of the premier zodiacal placements, and because I'm not attributing astrological effects to the physicality of the objects themselves. The NN is important, but less so than the Ascendant.[IMO]

I would include the Ascendant as a full-fledged member of a T-square. Not sure about the NN.

Found one astrologer's blog concerning the NN. He asserts it's exalted in Gemini, but doesn't accord it actual rulership. No domicile for the Dragon!

Hey, you how when you're absolutely certain about something, but can hardly find anyone else who agrees with you? Hmmm....wonder how that would feel?

Rulership issues aside, I believe that it should be included in a T-square, simply because it describes and locates a force to be reckoned with. Not seeing any reason why it would have to be a physical object in order to be included.

david starling said:

Rulership issues aside, I believe that it should be included in a T-square, simply because it describes and locates a force to be reckoned with. Not seeing any reason why it would have to be a physical object in order to be included.

Click to expand...

If that's the case, then I will have two more T-square: a Jupiter/Chiron/Mercury one with Chiron as focal point, and a Saturn/Mercury/Chiron with Mercury as focal point (they could just be a grand cross if Saturn and Jupiter were close enough to form a square). Not sure what this will mean though. All I know about Chiron is that it's an emotional wound. There isn't much about Chiron that I can gather.

If you use a sensitive placement as a planet, then you would have a "grand square" because if you use the N.node you must also use the S.node.

No. the nodes are not planets.

One aspect which is the exception: the exact (1 degree) conjunction....to either node.
LIN

Lin said:

If you use a sensitive placement as a planet, then you would have a "grand square" because if you use the N.node you must also use the S.node.

No. the nodes are not planets.

One aspect which is the exception: the exact (1 degree) conjunction....to either node.
LIN

Click to expand...

So, if the conjunction orb is 1 degree or less, you WOULD consider a lunar node as the equivalent of a planet?
Lin, notice that the Ecliptic is our plane of measurement. And, that ALL the planets, and the Moon as well, are REPRESENTED in the zodiac by MEASURED points, not by the actual physical presence of the Moon and planets themselves, unless the Moon and Planets are precisely at their nodes. These measured points are the intersections of the lunar and planetary lines of Celestial Longitude with the plane of the Ecliptic which contains our zodiacal circle.
Given its extreme importance in the Chart, I'm using the Ascendant as the equivalent of a planet, and giving it full planetary status, including Sign-rulership. But, I'm not including the nodes as Sign-rulers--more like concentrated "power-points".
I welcome your comments.