Minderwiz
Kibeth - the word 'planet' comes from the Greek for 'wanderer' - it's a 'wandering star' - so yes in Astrological terms the planets are 'stars' however in the main it's the wanderers that count in Astrology, simply because they move. Some of the fixed stars have also been given meaning - around 50 or so - but whilst that seems are lot, it is microscopic relative to the number of stars in the sky,
The Northern Cross can be seen in the sky (well depending on where you live and the time of year) but a Grand Cross cannot. It's impossible to go outside and look up in the sky and point one out. The reason for this is obvious with a moment's thought.
Such patterns are not asterisms, they are the result of drawing actual lines on a chart. Now humans work by pattern recognition and we do like to impose patterns on what we see - the Rorscach tests support that view. But not all patterns have to have meanings.
If Asteroids and points were allowed the situation at the moment is one of multiple Grand Crosses!!! cast a chart and look. My points here are that:
The more objects you allow, the more likely it becomes for a Grand Cross to be common - so what does it show besides the obvious aspects?
The planets that compose it cannot be ignored and indeed Mark Edmund Jones made that same point in his 1974 book on Aspect patterns. At some point we might well have Pluto, Uranus, Neptune and Chiron forming such a pattern so everyone on Earth born in a period of a year or so will have one in their charts (assuming there's a human race left by then) - does that make them a 'special feature' worthy of note?
One which comprises Moon, Mercury, Mars and Jupiter is fleeting, for only an hour or so - Very few people will have it in their charts - are the two Grand Crosses to be treated in the same fashion? (well I'm sure that some would take the former as a sign of the second coming or Armageddon or similar, so I suppose it would be worthy of note LOL)
Does the pattern impose a greater reality on the aspects? I can't prove that it does not, nor I think can anyone prove that it does. However if you start to treat the pattern as being the important thing and the aspects as having less importance, then IMHO you are putting the Astrocart before the Astrohorse (Pegasus??) LOL
Look to the fundamentals first - a Grand Cross, in itself,may or may not be an interesting secondary or tertiary feature the aspects between the planets may well be of primary importance
The Northern Cross can be seen in the sky (well depending on where you live and the time of year) but a Grand Cross cannot. It's impossible to go outside and look up in the sky and point one out. The reason for this is obvious with a moment's thought.
Such patterns are not asterisms, they are the result of drawing actual lines on a chart. Now humans work by pattern recognition and we do like to impose patterns on what we see - the Rorscach tests support that view. But not all patterns have to have meanings.
If Asteroids and points were allowed the situation at the moment is one of multiple Grand Crosses!!! cast a chart and look. My points here are that:
The more objects you allow, the more likely it becomes for a Grand Cross to be common - so what does it show besides the obvious aspects?
The planets that compose it cannot be ignored and indeed Mark Edmund Jones made that same point in his 1974 book on Aspect patterns. At some point we might well have Pluto, Uranus, Neptune and Chiron forming such a pattern so everyone on Earth born in a period of a year or so will have one in their charts (assuming there's a human race left by then) - does that make them a 'special feature' worthy of note?
One which comprises Moon, Mercury, Mars and Jupiter is fleeting, for only an hour or so - Very few people will have it in their charts - are the two Grand Crosses to be treated in the same fashion? (well I'm sure that some would take the former as a sign of the second coming or Armageddon or similar, so I suppose it would be worthy of note LOL)
Does the pattern impose a greater reality on the aspects? I can't prove that it does not, nor I think can anyone prove that it does. However if you start to treat the pattern as being the important thing and the aspects as having less importance, then IMHO you are putting the Astrocart before the Astrohorse (Pegasus??) LOL
Look to the fundamentals first - a Grand Cross, in itself,may or may not be an interesting secondary or tertiary feature the aspects between the planets may well be of primary importance