Mathmatics and Aspects

This area is for those who wish to ask questions about, or to discuss astrological theory. ​ ​P​lease feel free to drop in and ask questions, add comments and answer queries here.

Moderator: Noel Eastwood

Post Reply
Lilith78
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 5:24 am
Contact:

Mathmatics and Aspects

Post by Lilith78 » Tue May 30, 2017 8:12 am

Hopefully this has not been posted elsewhere. If it has, then please let me know so I can read the post.

I am a novice astrologer looking to gain a great (perhaps expert opinion) on astrology. There has been something bugging me for a little while now, which is why a conjunction is only considered a conjunction when two planets are in the same sign and blah. Why is there a blah? Why is there a second condition to forming a conjunction? The only reason I can think of (and perhaps you will relate) is if anytime there are two planets in the same sign, these two planets will be automatically conjunct with each other, then two many planets will be conjunct. Whatever is true about a conjunction may not be as true in this case.

For example, I have read that when the Sun and Moon are conjunct, the person is "Stubborn and self-willed. Sometimes an unbalanced or one-sided personality; deep-rooted habits." If my Sun and Moon are both in Pisces (which they are not in real life, but please pretend that they are), then I would be "stubborn and self-willed." I may have "an unbalanced or one-sided personality." I may sometimes have "deep-rooted habits." The fact that both luminaries are in the same sign does not necessarily mean all of these things are true of me. I may be spending too much time on this one aspect, because there may be more relevant aspects in my chart that tell me far more about myself. If this is the reason why astrologers seem to agree on degrees necessary for an aspect, then I get why there is this condition. Going back to the example, my Sun may 29 degrees in Pisces, and my Moon may only be 1 degrees in Pisces. This would then mean that what I said about this aspect is both far less likely to be true and even if it is true the intensity (the accuracy) of those words would go down. Please let us be honest, has any astrologer reasonably proven that this is the reason why degrees exist in the first case, when it comes to aspects? If they have, through thorough testing of this theory, then by all means let me know this, otherwise I would love to hear your theories on why the degrees exist.

The main reason I wish to do away with degrees is that it seems far to common, when looking at a birth chart or a natal chart, to see no aspect. Having no aspect should not (at least in my mind) be common. Maybe that is just me. Thoughts?

Thank you for reading this post. Thank you for your responses, they will not only give me a better understanding of aspects, but hopefully they will also help you crystallize what you already and actually know.

User avatar
Noel Eastwood
Site Admin
Posts: 1582
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 5:04 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Mathmatics and Aspects

Post by Noel Eastwood » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:20 pm

Lilith, if you look outside at night during a Moon - Venus conjunction you will see both Moon and Venus close together. Astrologers and astonomers use degrees to determine how close they are to each other. When we draw up our astrology charts we use those same degrees to show representations between planets. We put them into the signs which for western astrology are exactly 30 degrees wide.

Then next thing we do is form patterns showing the relationships between these planets. For instance Moon and Sun within 10 degrees of each other, in the same sign or not, is called a conjunction. According to the nature of the planets we can tell if that will be c comfortable relationship or not so comfortable. That's why we use degrees. When planets form angles, 60 deg, 90 deg, 120 or 180 degrees we have different names and different types of relationships. It can get complicated when trying to fit planet + sign + House + aspect + aspected planet all into one meaning. That's why the study to become a professional astrologer is so time consuming and requires disciplined study.
Noel Eastwood - Psychological Astrology

Books on Amazon

FREE Astrology Course

Lilith78
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 5:24 am
Contact:

Re: Mathmatics and Aspects

Post by Lilith78 » Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:14 am

I wish to better understand what you just Noel. Please let me know if this is the case or not.

In the example you gave, Sun and Moon are in conjunction when the Sun is 0 degrees Aries and the Moon may range from 20 degrees Pisces to 10 degrees Aries. This range works, because the Moon is within degrees of the Sun. The parts that confuse me are why only 10 degrees? If Moon forms a relationship with Sun thanks to 10 degrees, is it no longer able to form the same relationship when it is 20 degrees away? I, from my very limited experience, would understand the intensity is greatly diminished if the Sun is 20 degrees from the Moon, and perhaps diminished enough to say whatever relationship they have is clearly not a relationship based on a conjunction.

The second part, when you said, "the nature of the planets we can tell if that will be c comfortable relationship or not so comfortable" is one I would love some clarification on. I recall you talking about each planet or luminary as if they are people. For example Mars has a very definite personality. From what little I gather Mars and Hermes do not get along well. This means their signs would not form a comfortable relationship either. So, Aries would probably not get along well with either Virgo or Gemini. Supposing I am right about Hermes and Mars, would you agree with what I said.

Secondly, if the Greek Gods do not get along well, do the positive aspect actually result in not so comfortable relationships? For example if Mars and Mercury form a trine (a trine being a normally beneficial aspect) would actually result in a not so comfortable relationship.

User avatar
Noel Eastwood
Site Admin
Posts: 1582
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 5:04 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Mathmatics and Aspects

Post by Noel Eastwood » Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:32 am

Lilith, these are excellent questions.

1. the further the palmnets move out of orb, and we use the word 'orb' to describe how close, in degrees, a planet is to another planet in forming a pattern. We use the word 'aspect' to describe these patterns and relationships between planets.

For example: Sun is 15 degrees Aries, any planet within 10 deg, so from 5 to 25 deg Aries, is now 'conjunct' the Sun. Their relationship is a combination of the two. SO Sun conjunct Mars would be firey, especially as its in Aries, a Fire sign. If the planets were Sun and Saturn, even in Aries, it would be cooler, not so hot and excitable, it would be more down to earth, practical, slower acting and probably some depression would creep in. If the sign was Capricorn, Earth, then this would be more compatible, Sun - Saturn would be quite happy to work together in Capricorn. But in Aries, the Sun would want to leap out and have fun and party and sporty, but Saturn would be like a wet blanket, a ball and chain around the firey Aries Sun's ankles slowing him down.

2. Aspects are also formed at 60 deg (sextile, nice), 90 deg (square, difficult, sometimes), 120 (trine easy and lazy), 180 (opposition, usually difficult). They all have their own orb, so if it's Sun at 15 deg Aries and Saturn at 25 deg Libra they are within the 10 deg orb. I use wide orbs, sometimes up to 15 degrees, so this is something you need to be aware of. Some astrologers sue only 8 degrees or 5 degrees of orb.

3. Personalities of archetypes - yes you are right again, each archetype/planet has a personality and will get along with or not depending on who they are in aspect with and the signs they are in. This is a whole course of study in itself so you can play around looking at combinations. For example Sun / mars, both fire both happy to be playing with each other; Uranus / Saturn - both outer planets, to powerful and so will generally be quite happy with each other's company.

Now a question for you, the outer planets and inner planets make for interesting combinations - why?

Inner planets Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars + Outer planets Jupiter to Pluto. Why the distinction and why do we look particularly at inner Vs outer combinations?

This is a very advanced question so don't stress over it but give it a go.
Noel Eastwood - Psychological Astrology

Books on Amazon

FREE Astrology Course

Lilith78
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 5:24 am
Contact:

Re: Mathmatics and Aspects

Post by Lilith78 » Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:37 am

I have a somewhat innovative view on why the difference between inner and outer planets. I back it up with a psychological term, which is "cognitive dissonance". It is entirely possible that cognitive dissonance affects all of us, but rather than try to prove this, I wish instead to give a specific example. To the outside world, people are only able to see my behavior. To my own inner world, I am only able to see my behavior. When the way I view my inner behavior is the opposite of how I behave in the outer world, then cognitive dissonance is the way to explain this. More concretely, suppose I strongly believe in pacifism. A pacifist never gets into fights. They would just as soon let a sword plunge into their heart as you or I would pick up a sword to defend ourselves. In a pacifist's mind, killing anyone, no matter what the reason, is never acceptable. So there I am, and my beliefs tell me not to even defend myself let alone go on the offensive. If I am cognitively dissonant from this belief, then I would certainly pick up a sword to defend myself, and there would be a decent chance (depending on how cognitively dissonant I am from this belief) to go on the offense as well. So in my inner world, I believe I should never pick up a sword or especially go on the offensive. To the outer world, each time I am attacked I defend myself and perhaps have gone on the offensive several times. This is a great example of cognitive dissonance.

It would not surprise me at all, and perhaps I am being too original or innovative by saying this, but I could see the inner planets and outer planets being compared and contrasted in the same way. Granted a Person's Sun Sign has a lot to do with how they behave and how the outer world sees them, but the Sun actually (in many cases) affects heavily how they view themselves in the world. Another way to put this is, suppose a person has no idea when they are born, so their is no easy way for them to absolutely know what their Sun Sign is. Let us also suppose this person is quite familiar with astrology, and they agree that astrology is a significant component of how a person behaves, then even in this extreme case, I would say it is much easier for the person to know their own sign, then it is for the outside world to be able to guess the sign. This is why I would put the Sun into the inner world, rather than the outer world. I am guessing their is a more widely acceptable way of explaining this, but I hope that rather then dismiss what I just said, you think it over and let me hear your thoughts when you have put a lot of thought into it.

User avatar
Noel Eastwood
Site Admin
Posts: 1582
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 5:04 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Mathmatics and Aspects

Post by Noel Eastwood » Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:00 pm

Another example of 'cognitive dissonance'.

The Fox and the Grapes - the fable of "The Fox and the Grapes", by Aesop, is an exemplar of cognitive dissonance by the subversion of rationality. A fox spies high-hanging grapes and wishes to eat them. When unable to reach the grapes, the fox decides the fruit are not worth eating, and justified his decision, claiming to himself, that the grapes are most likely sour.

The moral of the fable is that "Any fool can despise what he cannot get"; hence the popular phrase about dismissing a thwarted goal as "unimportant" is mere expression of sour grapes. The pattern of psychological behaviour illustrated in the fable of "The Fox and the Grapes" indicates that: When a person desires something and finds that it is unattainable, he or she diminishes the resultant cognitive dissonance by criticizing the object of desire as worthless; said pattern of behaviour is an "adaptive preference formation" that allows the person to subvert rationality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive ... the_Grapes

Cognitive dissonance generally sets up discomfort within the individual when they compromise their values. So in this example the Fox is both depressed and annoyed at not getting the grapes. He then complains stating the opposite.
Noel Eastwood - Psychological Astrology

Books on Amazon

FREE Astrology Course

User avatar
Noel Eastwood
Site Admin
Posts: 1582
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 5:04 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Mathmatics and Aspects

Post by Noel Eastwood » Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:04 pm

Inner planets = Moon, Sun (also known as Luminaries), Mercury, Venus and Mars.
Outer planets = Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto

They big difference is that the 'inner planets', meaning 'within' the orb of the Earth and the Sun, are 'personal' planets. The 'outer planets', meaning they are 'outside' the earth's orbit of the Sun, are also called 'generational' planets.

The two sets of planets are quite different in their function, using your Sun example, what differences would that be?
Noel Eastwood - Psychological Astrology

Books on Amazon

FREE Astrology Course

Post Reply