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

MoonlightSonata

Well-known member
I'm hoping some kind soul(s) will help me understand how this works.

I'm looking at a chart with the sun in Aries in the 2nd house and Chiron in Scorpio in the 9th house, and Astrotheme and Astrodient are saying the connection is an opposition, not inconjunct.

How can a cardinal sign be in opposition to a fixed sign? :andy:


Please help me. Here's the chart if you need to see it:

astro_2gw_anonymous_hp.38180.5236.png
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I'm hoping some kind soul(s) will help me understand how this works.

How can a cardinal sign be in opposition to a fixed sign? :andy:

Please help me.
a Cardingal SIGN is NOT IN OPPOSITION to a Fixed SIGN :smile:
Aries is IN AVERSION to Scorpio


Cassandra Tyndall on the Astrology of Aspects and Aversions :smile:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtqwobgKo6U


A Study in Aversion
the traditional astrology concept of aversion
and how it plays out in interpreting a chart.
In traditional astrology aspects are primarily by whole sign
and the only aspects that are used are the classical Ptolemaic aspects
– sextile, square, trine, opposition.
Signs that are not in a classical aspect with each other
– either 30 degrees or 150 degrees
are said to be in aversion
meaning they are turned away from each other

out of the line of vision
and
hence out of contact :smile:
Aversion as an interpretive concept
can play out in some interesting and significant ways
- for example look at the chart of
the founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud.
https://studentofastrology.com/2015/...y-in-aversion/
 

ElenaJ

Well-known member
Actually the sun/Chiron aspect is very wide, 8 degrees, so I would even question how effective it is. If they consider this an active aspect then also Jupiter/south node should be considered, which is just as wide.
More important is the Chiron almost exactly inconjunct mercury/mars/moon.
 

Kannon

Well-known member
Because aspects are geometry, not sign based. Oppositions are +/-180°. Quincunxes (inconjuncts) are +/-150°.

But this Sun/Chiron should not count as an opposition since it is over 7.5° wide involving an asteroid.
 

MoonlightSonata

Well-known member
Thanks for schooling me, y'all. This is a lot for me to digest, and it's also humbling because I thought I had a basic idea of how oppositions work. And then, BAM! I get my hands on a chart that creates a bump in the road, so to speak. And I learn that the rules are different when asteroids are involved and that orbs (that i'm still trying to learn about and commit to memory) need to be considered. And if the orb is too wide, the confusing aspect might not be what it appears to be and/or need to be considered at all.
 

IleneK

Premium Member
Because aspects are geometry, not sign based. Oppositions are +/-180°. Quincunxes (inconjuncts) are +/-150°.

But this Sun/Chiron should not count as an opposition since it is over 7.5° wide involving an asteroid.

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.]

I personally think that aspects by sign capture the energies that create the traditional effect of the conjunction, trine, sq and opposition. For example, planets which are close, but in adjacent signs, have an adverse relationship, are disjunct, and lack the cohesion that two planets in the same sign characterizes. Planets that are trine by sign do share the same element; when trine by degree but not sign, they engage in the energy of a square.

I think it may be unwise to dismiss the important symbolic meaning of sign-determined aspect relations between planets.
 
Last edited:

ElenaJ

Well-known member
No, not dismiss them.
However, it can happen that a planet in the last degree opposes one in the first degree of its sign. Which adds weight to the force intrinsic in an opposition.
As you say, they have nothing in common.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Meek.
It's like walking into a room where you don't know anyone.

They do have one thing that is shared: The degree of the Sign each is in, which is usually required to be within 2 degrees or less.

Here's something else--a Trine consists of agreement in Element, but a disagreement on Modality. And, a Square, is the reverse, agreement in Modality, but disagreement in Element. Why is the first matchup considered harmonious, while the latter is considered dissonant? Seems like the geometry is the reason for that, not the Sign-qualities, since Squares involve geometric opposition by degree, and Trines do not.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
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.]

I personally think that aspects by sign capture the energies that create the traditional effect of the conjunction, trine, sq and opposition. For example, planets which are close, but in adjacent signs, have an adverse relationship, are disjunct, and lack the cohesion that two planets in the same sign characterizes. Planets that are trine by sign do share the same element; when trine by degree but not sign, they engage in the energy of a square.

I think it may be unwise to dismiss the important symbolic meaning of sign-determined aspect relations between planets.
No, not dismiss them.
However, it can happen that
a planet in the last degree opposes one in the first degree of its sign.

Which adds weight to the force intrinsic in an opposition.
As you say, they have nothing in common.
hence
opposition IS by SIGN
as well as OCCASIONALLY by DEGREE but not by SIGN :smile:
 

ElenaJ

Well-known member
In fact, it seems the important factor is the number of degrees between the two, not whether they share sign or element.
A trine can also be out of sign.
 

ElenaJ

Well-known member
Not static.
In a horary, less, in a natal more.
in a synastry 3.
Don't ask my why, I don't have a ready reference for you.
Not sure if the orbs vary based on the weight of the planet(s) involved. What do you think?
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Is a "Sextile" also a Traditionalistic "Disjunct"?
Since it has neither Element nor Modality in common.
Traditionally, there are FIVE Ptolemaic aspects :smile:

i.e.

SEXTILE
TRINE
SQUARE
OPPOSITION
and
CONJUNCTION

Traditionally, DISJUNCT is also known as AVERSION aka DISREGARD

as illustrated:


aversion-02.jpg
 
Top