How important are Degrees?

Amy-2609

After the responses I got from this post: http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=208013 it's been brought to my attention that Degrees are "kinda a big deal".

Firstly, I want to explain that when I first started learning a bit more about astrology and birth charts, it was through a friend of mine. She explained (to her knowledge) what Rising/Ascendant, Sun, Moon, Venus and Mercury were. We would go through charts, and had a vague concept of Mars, Saturn, Jupiter... but that was it.

This friend said that she only took Rising [...] Mercury into consideration, because that is what really influences how people interact with each other and their environment. And that was fine by me.

Secondly - I have a mild form of Dyscalculia (or, dyslexia for numbers). So, when I saw things like "02 degrees" or "29 degrees" -- I was out. My friend didn't care about degrees, nor did her mother (a "wise white witch"). And, quite frankly, I've found that I've done quite well without paying attention to Degrees (after 3 years, if something ain't broke - don't fix it).

But! People quite adamant that Degrees are... a big deal. Are they? If my minimalist approach has found no flaws - everyone I read for, which is half my class and a good deal of my friends, have said I was spot on - is it really important for me to take Degrees into consideration?

I understand what some people are saying, by their analogy of a road map etc. When I explain birth charts to people, I use the analogy of a jigsaw puzzle:

We all know out Sun sign, which is one puzzle piece. We can look at that, and obscurely make sense of it. But when we get other pieces, like Moon or Venus, then a larger picture forms for us to make sense of.

So, I definitely appreciate where people are coming from. But... either this is going over my head, or it's just not something that works for me. Again, I see numbers, and it's like all my thoughts have been thrown into a blender.

Can anyone shed some light on this - in simple terms, please - or point me in the direction where I could gather more information on Degrees?

Minderwiz

Amy-2609 said:
After the responses I got from this post: http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=208013 it's been brought to my attention that Degrees are "kinda a big deal".

Firstly, I want to explain that when I first started learning a bit more about astrology and birth charts, it was through a friend of mine. She explained (to her knowledge) what Rising/Ascendant, Sun, Moon, Venus and Mercury were. We would go through charts, and had a vague concept of Mars, Saturn, Jupiter... but that was it.

This friend said that she only took Rising [...] Mercury into consideration, because that is what really influences how people interact with each other and their environment. And that was fine by me.

Oh that it was that simple

Every planet plays a role in signifying how you will interact with others and your environment. Some may be more important than others but they all play a role. For your minimalist approach the least you can get a way with is the classical 7. So you do need to know what Saturn and Jupiter indicate.

Amy-2609 said:
Secondly - I have a mild form of Dyscalculia (or, dyslexia for numbers). So, when I saw things like "02 degrees" or "29 degrees" -- I was out. My friend didn't care about degrees, nor did her mother (a "wise white witch"). And, quite frankly, I've found that I've done quite well without paying attention to Degrees (after 3 years, if something ain't broke - don't fix it).

But! People quite adamant that Degrees are... a big deal. Are they? If my minimalist approach has found no flaws - everyone I read for, which is half my class and a good deal of my friends, have said I was spot on - is it really important for me to take Degrees into consideration?

I accept your issue with numbers - there are a few things you can do about it though. Firstly you can try looking at the chart by sign and take your aspects from the signs alone. It's by no means perfect but it can give you a good view of what's going on, without even thinking numbers. Originally aspects were sign based - to form an aspect the signs must have something in common - for example signs of the same element (Fire, Earth, Air, Water) have the element as common and they are also all Masculine or Feminine. So Aries, Leo, and Sagittarius are all Fire signs and all Masculine signs. If you join the signs by straight lines you'll get a triangle - these signs are all 'trine' to each other. So you can picture a trine without having to deal with numbers. The same is true of sextiles (signs of the same gender) and squares (signs of the same quality or mode - such as fixed signs)

There's no need to 'calculate' those aspects, just look at the signs involved in terms of element, quality and gender. Oppositions and conjunctions are easy - either the signs involved lie exactly opposite each other in the Zodiac or they are the same sign. So you can deal with all the traditional aspects without having to do any math at all. Using more than the traditional aspects will involve some math though as the nature of an aspect was changed when Kepler invented the minor aspects, and these days you can invent your own aspect by dividing the circle by any number you care to think of (though in your case, you probably wouldn't care to do the division

)

I did your synastry analysis without using a single degree, using the above principles but I would not say that it was any more than a sketch, rather than a full colour portrait. It still goes beyond what you are currently doing.

Amy-2609 said:
We all know out Sun sign, which is one puzzle piece. We can look at that, and obscurely make sense of it. But when we get other pieces, like Moon or Venus, then a larger picture forms for us to make sense of.

True but how are you going to understand the whole picture unless you look at the relationship between the elements of the picture - Signs, Planets, Houses? To keep things simple and avoid math you can use the Whole Sign system for houses. Thus your rising sign of Leo becomes your first house, the whole of Virgo becomes your second, Libra is your third, Scorpio your fourth and so on till you reach Cancer as your twelfth. You still need to know what the houses mean or what areas of life and which people are assigned to them but that doesn't involve numbers either. Whole Sign Houses are the original system and were used for 1,000 years in the West and are still used in Indian Astrology (Jyotish), so it's a valid approach.

Amy-2609 said:
So, I definitely appreciate where people are coming from. But... either this is going over my head, or it's just not something that works for me. Again, I see numbers, and it's like all my thoughts have been thrown into a blender.

Can anyone shed some light on this - in simple terms, please - or point me in the direction where I could gather more information on Degrees?

Try one step at a time. Start off by increasing the number of planets you use to 7 and make sure you know what each one signifies. Then find out a little about houses - just the basic meanings of each house, Finally look at the signs that planets are placed in, this will give you the area of life they are connected with (using Whole Sign Houses) and look for those connections between signs in terms of element, quality and gender. Doing that will take you some time but it won't involve any math at all. It will improve your reading skills in the longer term, once you are over the learning curve.

Whilst you are doing that, you will be looking at charts, most generated charts will have degree markers, but simply seeing whether planets are at the start, middle or end of the sign will lead you to realise that planets in related signs (such as Cardinal Signs) and in simlar positions in the sign (start, middle, end) are likely to have stronger links with each other, than if one was at the start and the other at the end. So you will begin to introduce an idea of intensity. Don't rush that - just let it develop over time.

Unless you want to go into advanced Astrology, that will give you a good working ability to analyse a chart without use of numbers. Obviously if you can address your issue with numbers it will help you develop your life skills - it has payoffs beyond simply doing Astrology. However you will still be able to do some effective Astrology without it.

If all goes well you can begin adding in the outer planets to your approach but again, take your time and get yourself comfortable with handling 7 rather than 5 before you try to handle 9 or 10. Good luck

Ronia

I can only say that having planets in trining signs doesn't mean the planets are in trine. I have Sun in Scorpio and Moon in Cancer. Accordng to this simplistic approach they would be in harmony, in a trine. But they are not. They are in square. That's how important degrees are, to me. Sextile signs can have square planets, square signs can have trining planets, etc. And in synastry it does matter, to me again (aside from the natal importance, of course).

Minderwiz

Ronia said:
I can only say that having planets in trining signs doesn't mean the planets are in trine. I have Sun in Scorpio and Moon in Cancer. Accordng to this simplistic approach they would be in harmony, in a trine. But they are not. They are in square. That's how important degrees are, to me. Sextile signs can have square planets, square signs can have trining planets, etc. And in synastry it does matter, to me again (aside from the natal importance, of course).

Separation will weaken the trine to an increasing extent with distance_, so degrees matter. However the nature of the signs shows how 'cooperative' the planets become, as does the nature of the planets. So the separation will reduce the 'harmony' but we are still dealing with signs of the same element and gender, this can never be a 'true' square.

Ronia

Minderwiz said:
Separation will weaken the trine to an increasing extent with distance_, so degrees matter. However the nature of the signs shows how 'cooperative' the planets become, as does the nature of the planets. So the separation will reduce the 'harmony' but we are still dealing with signs of the same element and gender, this can never be a 'true' square.

I beg to differ, Minderwiz. I can say that it is a very true square indeed. I can also give real life examples. The difference the trining signs brought was that I actually have a good idea about it, I feel it (as it's water playing here), I can use my intuition to somehow sail the stormy waters but there were and still are issues when it comes to Sun as me, as an individual, and all that Moon represents in my life. Also, issues with and between male and female authorities in my life. It looks like a general understanding (trining signs) and refusal to truly understand each other in everyday life (square). Like one of those conversations: I know what you mean and I don't disagree but I don't agree either, so I'll do it my way although I do know what you mean and I'm not saying you're wrong.

P.S. The square Saturn/Sun (Leo/Scorpio and by degree) is in no way "truer", IMHO, and based on my own life, of course. It may be different for others.

dadsnook2000

And, . . .

And, as one who minimizes sign usage to just the natal chart (and only then, to a lighter degree than is typical) I have to agree with Ronia that aspects and degrees are highly important to my use of astrology --- as is houses. As one who works in both the Tropical and Sidereal formats, signs have shown themselves, for me, to be quite weak in influence once one goes beyond the natal chart. Dave

Minderwiz

But....

dadsnook2000 said:
And, as one who minimizes sign usage to just the natal chart (and only then, to a lighter degree than is typical) I have to agree with Ronia that aspects and degrees are highly important to my use of astrology --- as is houses. As one who works in both the Tropical and Sidereal formats, signs have shown themselves, for me, to be quite weak in influence once one goes beyond the natal chart. Dave

Please don't take things out of context

I didn't say that degrees are unimportant (nor for that matter did I say aspects were unimportant - quite the reverse)...merely that Amy could improve her astrological skills without first (and I stress first) overcoming her real issue with numbers. I did point out that if and when she has therapy for her numbers block she will be able to take her astrology still further. I'm sure you would want her to make some progress on her Astrology rather than just giving up.

So, no, what I suggested will not turn her into an astrologer with the same skills as you, or Ronia. What it will do is enable her to push her Astrology a few steps forward. She'll be able to incorporate more planets, learn about the houses and cope with basic aspects, without giving up because of numbers. She'll even be able to make a simple assessment of the strength of an aspect by comparing the visual positions of the planets within the signs. Is it simplistic? - of course it is!!! But it takes her some steps forward. I repeat, if and when she is able to address her issue with numbers, she will be able to go much further but I'd rather she took those few small steps in the meantime.

As for signs, I used them here in a natal context, so presumably that's OK

. I have found signs work outside natal as is witnessed by the various horary threads. I don't use signs in a modern way but a very traditional way, as does Jyotish, so they appear to work in both a tropical and sidereal context. Indeed I did think of taking up Jyotish as an area of study but the facts that it and Hellenistic Astrology are closely related and that Hellinistic Astrology is the basis of what we practice in the West, led me to make a different choice.

I used whole sign houses for Amy, again to minimise her need to deal with numbers. I use a quadrant system like you but I'm willing to accept that WSH can an does work, as I see a lot of astrologers using it effectively. Whether I'll ever use it exclusively or even mainly I very much doubt. Rob Hand says it doesn't work well unless you transition slowly. He, like you, was heavily influenced by Ebertin, so he acknowledges that the change to WSH presents real challenges, especially if like Ronia important planets change houses. Have a listen to the podcast...you might not agree but as someone who thinks very carefully about his Astrology, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

http://theastrologypodcast.com/2013/12/09/robert-hand-reconciling-modern-traditional-astrology/

dadsnook2000

For Minderwiz

What you offered Amy was very well thought out, and I hope, helpful to her.

My problem with signs has always been the uncompromising battle of two signs over one sector of space as seen from Earth. They both can't be right. Sometimes a given "system" will be workable within its own bounds. Not so with the Tropical and the Sidereal zodiacs. Neither seems to work that well. There are too many inconsistencies in some signs as to what they suggest and what real people exhibit. And some signs appear weak in their influence while others are more evident.

Its a mess, as I see it. Once one goes beyond the C-F-M and F-E-A-W basic concepts of influence on the planets, the book-given-details start to conflict or become less than reliable. Dave

Minderwiz

dadsnook2000 said:
There are too many inconsistencies in some signs as to what they suggest and what real people exhibit. And some signs appear weak in their influence while others are more evident.

Its a mess, as I see it. Once one goes beyond the C-F-M and F-E-A-W basic concepts of influence on the planets, the book-given-details start to conflict or become less than reliable. Dave

Well my point about aspects was solely based on C-F-M and F-E-A-W plus the M-F dichotomy.. Your point though is well taken as, since Alan Leo, Signs have indeed become confused by trying to blend in the nature of their ruling planet - look what's happened to Scorpio, Aquarius and Pisces to try to make them conform to Pluto, Uranus and Neptune. I'm not saying that those planets are irrelevant, indeed in some ways quite the contrary. Planets are multi-faceted and multi-dimensioned and most importantly, planets are active.

For my practice, Signs are mainly (apart from Triplicity and Quadruplicity) for their rulerships (by planets) both at the level of whole signs and at sub levels - parts of signs. I don't attribute personality characteristics to them. There are authors who do, even in the Tradition - Vettius Valens includes very brief personality descriptions, whereas Firmicus Maternus deals with the signs on their own in 9 lines. Thereafter signs only get mentioned in terms of how they effect planets in them and that to a far smaller extent than he treats planets in houses or planets in aspects (he of course recognises the 'qualtiative' side of aspects).

So I'm not really going to defend the modern views of signs - I rejected them long ago but I do find a traditional view of signs and their divisions and rulerships can help me quite a lot.

dadsnook2000

Compatible

For different reasons, different points of view, and different practices we move in parallel it seems. We are each exploring different aspects of astrology, a field which is so vast and so relevant that no matter where and how we use it, it works. The more we are immersed in it, the more wonderful and magical it becomes. Happy Holidays. Dave