Does conjunction cast aspects' nets wider?

I'm trying hard to phrase my question in an understandable fashion here (and I apologize if I'm using any terminology incorrectly -- this is only my second big push into trying to really grasp astrology...)...

Basically, I'm wondering if a conjunction bestows all the aspects experienced by one of the conjunct planets upon the other conjunct planet, and vice versa, simply because they're conjunct?

I'll offer an example to hopefully make the question clear:

First of all, I realize that different astrologers use different orbs when recognizing various aspects. I'm still learning, so I don't yet have a set of firm mental guidelines in place for this yet, myself. For the sake of getting my question across, I'm going to ask that we agree that within the context of this post and any direct replies that the required orb for conjunction will be 8 degrees, and for opposition it will be 6 degrees -- other aspects don't need to be addressed one by one, as I believe the overall answers will still be easily applied to them (assuming that there even are overall answers to this question!).

So say that Mercury sits in someone's chart at 5 degrees into Cancer.

In the same chart, Venus is at 10 degrees Cancer.

Also, say that Saturn is located at 1 degree Capricorn.

Using the stated orbs, then we can say that Mercury and Venus form a conjunction, and also that Mercury and Saturn comprise an opposition. Venus and Saturn, however, do not realize an opposition between them, as the orb that separates them is 9 degrees, which is too wide to satisfy the "within 6 degrees" requirement for an opposition.

My question, then, is this: since Venus is conjunct Mercury, and that means the two planets are bound up with each other in terms of their function and behavior within the context of this chart (and within the person that the chart describes), should Venus be regarded as being in opposition to Saturn anyway, simply by virtue of the conjunct bond shared with Mercury, which is truly in opposition with Saturn? Does the opposition status of Mercury "extend" to Venus here because of the conjunction they comprise?

Also, would the same logic apply (or not) to the Ascendant and Midheaven? I'm trying to understand a chart that has two planets on one side of the Ascendant, all of which are conjunct each other...and then two other planets on the other side of the Ascendant, also with all three conjunct each other...but the two pairs of planets are too far from each other to be conjunct. Does the Ascendant effectively "bind" them together into one large stellium? And does the Ascendant even count when we discuss stellia, or is that strictly for planets?

Please ask me for clarification if I didn't get my question across -- maybe I can attach a chart everyone can look at if visuals would help. Thank you in advance for any help with this!

I thought it was pretty clear

frac_ture said:

Using the stated orbs, then we can say that Mercury and Venus form a conjunction, and also that Mercury and Saturn comprise an opposition. Venus and Saturn, however, do not realize an opposition between them, as the orb that separates them is 9 degrees, which is too wide to satisfy the "within 6 degrees" requirement for an opposition.

My question, then, is this: since Venus is conjunct Mercury, and that means the two planets are bound up with each other in terms of their function and behavior within the context of this chart (and within the person that the chart describes), should Venus be regarded as being in opposition to Saturn anyway, simply by virtue of the conjunct bond shared with Mercury, which is truly in opposition with Saturn? Does the opposition status of Mercury "extend" to Venus here because of the conjunction they comprise?

Click to expand...

Does ? I do this. I see the Opposition only with the planet in orb; Mercury and Saturn, but that conjunction is in orb with Mercury that has the Venus Conjunction. I know it seems hair-splitting but I see the difference when I lay a natal chart out on my 'Astro Tree' arrangement.

Of course this means that any individual planet in aspect does not have a 'pure' influence. The opposition is with one planet that has a conjunction with another, not two oppositions.

... Hope I made sense too

frac_ture said:

I'm going to ask that we agree that within the context of this post and any direct replies that the required orb for conjunction will be 8 degrees, and for opposition it will be 6 degrees -- other aspects don't need to be addressed one by one, as I believe the overall answers will still be easily applied to them (assuming that there even are overall answers to this question!).

So say that Mercury sits in someone's chart at 5 degrees into Cancer.

In the same chart, Venus is at 10 degrees Cancer.

Also, say that Saturn is located at 1 degree Capricorn.

Using the stated orbs, then we can say that Mercury and Venus form a conjunction, and also that Mercury and Saturn comprise an opposition. Venus and Saturn, however, do not realize an opposition between them, as the orb that separates them is 9 degrees, which is too wide to satisfy the "within 6 degrees" requirement for an opposition.

My question, then, is this: since Venus is conjunct Mercury, and that means the two planets are bound up with each other in terms of their function and behavior within the context of this chart (and within the person that the chart describes), should Venus be regarded as being in opposition to Saturn anyway, simply by virtue of the conjunct bond shared with Mercury, which is truly in opposition with Saturn? Does the opposition status of Mercury "extend" to Venus here because of the conjunction they comprise?

Also, would the same logic apply (or not) to the Ascendant and Midheaven? I'm trying to understand a chart that has two planets on one side of the Ascendant, all of which are conjunct each other...and then two other planets on the other side of the Ascendant, also with all three conjunct each other...but the two pairs of planets are too far from each other to be conjunct. Does the Ascendant effectively "bind" them together into one large stellium? And does the Ascendant even count when we discuss stellia, or is that strictly for planets?

Click to expand...

The easy bit is the second half of your question to which the answer is 'No' - that is the Ascendant or any other point (such as MC, house cusps, Lots, Nodes, etc) does not have any orbs. So unlike the first example it can't 'bind' the two conjunctions into one larger one. Any 'binding' requires a planet/body.

The first part is more difficult, as you are now moving into the 'art' of Astrology - that part that does not have any fixed rules and requires the Astrologer to make a judgement based on the circumstances. I would tend to agree with ravenest here - that is my initial feeling would be that we are dealing with one conjunction of two planets, and one opposition of two planets, not an opposition that involves all three.

My only hesitation would be, that I'm open to the possibility of the latter. My reasoning lies in the nature of orbs, however you define their size. The reason for them is to have a guideline of when one planet is likely to 'affect' an other. However, it's not a situation of the 'orb' triggering a switch which puts the light on and there's an aspect and then triggers it again later on and the light is switched off and the aspect ends . Instead we are dealing with progressive strengthening during application and a progressive weakening during separation. Both before and after the aspect we use a rule of our own to say, ' before/after this point I don't think there will be a noticeable effect' but that is a general rule, and individual instances might be found to differ. So I might change my mind, through observation and experience of the individual concerned.

So My initial response (like ravenest) is based on my experience that a noticeable effect at this separation is unlikely but it doesn't have to be so in every single case.

If this is someone you know (or your own chart) you can test to see if there's any evidence from observation, before making up your mind. If you're doing a chart of someone you don't know, then err on the safe side and don't treat Venus and Saturn as being in opposition. In general keep to your orbs as guidelines, unless you see evidence that you might need to either relax or tighten them in a specific instance.

ravenest said:

I thought it was pretty clear


Does ? I do this. I see the Opposition only with the planet in orb; Mercury and Saturn, but that conjunction is in orb with Mercury that has the Venus Conjunction. I know it seems hair-splitting but I see the difference when I lay a natal chart out on my 'Astro Tree' arrangement.

Of course this means that any individual planet in aspect does not have a 'pure' influence. The opposition is with one planet that has a conjunction with another, not two oppositions.

... Hope I made sense too

Click to expand...

I'm glad my post made sense, and yes, I believe I understood yours, too. Thanks very much for weighing in!

Unless I'm off here, you're saying that the correct interpretive path does not involve sort of mentally merging the two conjunct planets into one "double planet." In my example, then, you wouldn't regard the Mercury-Venus conjunction as something along the lines of "Ven-Merc-us-ury." My early studies have involved a handful of websites and The Inner Sky by Steven Forrest, and somewhere among those resources, I got this notion that a conjunction might possibly be akin to pouring two different kinds of liquids into one container, resulting in a new and irreversibly blended liquid. It sounds like you (and Minderwiz) wouldn't go so far as all that, and that you'd still regard each planet as retaining its "individuality."

Minderwiz said:

The easy bit is the second half of your question to which the answer is 'No' - that is the Ascendant or any other point (such as MC, house cusps, Lots, Nodes, etc) does not have any orbs. So unlike the first example it can't 'bind' the two conjunctions into one larger one. Any 'binding' requires a planet/body.

Click to expand...

But don't the points have to have orbs of some kind? I ask because I've run charts on both Cafe Astrology and Astrodienst (astro.com), and they note many aspects with things like the Ascendant and the Midheaven, even when the planets and points don't line up perfectly. For example, I have Mars conjunct my Midheaven (both above-named websites mark this as a conjunction) though they don't align perfectly down to the exact degree: they sit almost five degrees apart. Doesn't that mean some kind of orb is being used to establish a cutoff point when determining aspects, even with respect to points?

Do you mean that points don't count when speaking about stellia? Sorry for my confusion here...

Minderwiz said:

The first part is more difficult, as you are now moving into the 'art' of Astrology - that part that does not have any fixed rules and requires the Astrologer to make a judgement based on the circumstances.

Click to expand...

This is actually very helpful to hear...and I think ravenest was offering that kind of "artistic" feedback. I feel like I'm not advanced enough yet to have formed my own conclusions about things like what exact orbs "feel right" to me and such, but I appreciate hearing that some of what I've been banging my head against will require some subjective analysis rather than purely objective answers.

Minderwiz said:

I would tend to agree with ravenest here - that is my initial feeling would be that we are dealing with one conjunction of two planets, and one opposition of two planets, not an opposition that involves all three.

Click to expand...

Thanks to both of you for your take on this. Either way of looking at it had seemed equally possible to me, but again, I'm in the early-ish stages of learning, and I think I was confused by some prose discussion in The Inner Sky regarding how to view a conjunction. This has been really helpful, though, in refining my understanding!

Minderwiz said:

My only hesitation would be, that I'm open to the possibility of the latter. My reasoning lies in the nature of orbs, however you define their size. The reason for them is to have a guideline of when one planet is likely to 'affect' an other. However, it's not a situation of the 'orb' triggering a switch which puts the light on and there's an aspect and then triggers it again later on and the light is switched off and the aspect ends . Instead we are dealing with progressive strengthening during application and a progressive weakening during separation. Both before and after the aspect we use a rule of our own to say, ' before/after this point I don't think there will be a noticeable effect' but that is a general rule, and individual instances might be found to differ. So I might change my mind, through observation and experience of the individual concerned.

So My initial response (like ravenest) is based on my experience that a noticeable effect at this separation is unlikely but it doesn't have to be so in every single case.

If this is someone you know (or your own chart) you can test to see if there's any evidence from observation, before making up your mind. If you're doing a chart of someone you don't know, then err on the safe side and don't treat Venus and Saturn as being in opposition. In general keep to your orbs as guidelines, unless you see evidence that you might need to either relax or tighten them in a specific instance.

Click to expand...

I think I get this, too: you're saying "Mostly no to the 'opposition-by-extension-via-conjunction' thing in general, but occasionally maybe yes, varying on an individual case by case basis, so apply some critical evaluation in these instances." At least, that's what I seem to be getting from your answer, and that does seem like a good approach. I also appreciate your clarification regarding the "spectrum of effect" versus the "light-switch/binary effect" ways of looking at orbs and aspects (I definitely had been thinking of all this more in the light-switch kind of way, although without having consciously chosen to do so -- it's just how my early understanding was taking shape for whatever reasons).

Thanks again to both of you for your help!

frac_ture said:

I'm glad my post made sense, and yes, I believe I understood yours, too. Thanks very much for weighing in!

Unless I'm off here, you're saying that the correct interpretive path does not involve sort of mentally merging the two conjunct planets into one "double planet." In my example, then, you wouldn't regard the Mercury-Venus conjunction as something along the lines of "Ven-Merc-us-ury." My early studies have involved a handful of websites and The Inner Sky by Steven Forrest, and somewhere among those resources, I got this notion that a conjunction might possibly be akin to pouring two different kinds of liquids into one container, resulting in a new and irreversibly blended liquid. It sounds like you (and Minderwiz) wouldn't go so far as all that, and that you'd still regard each planet as retaining its "individuality."

Click to expand...

I'm clear on this, a planet always retains its basic nature - that is Saturn is always Saturn and is never ever Venus, nor is a Venus Mercury conjunction some blend of the two. Think of it as two people standing together. Their sheer proximity means that one is affected by the other. If they are friends, the situation might be easy and they may do things together but they never become some merged person. If they are not friendly then they may act against their normal inclinations but they don't become a merged person. Proximity affects 'behaviour' but it doesn't change the essence of the planet.

frac_ture said:

But don't the points have to have orbs of some kind? I ask because I've run charts on both Cafe Astrology and Astrodienst (astro.com), and they note many aspects with things like the Ascendant and the Midheaven, even when the planets and points don't line up perfectly. For example, I have Mars conjunct my Midheaven (both above-named websites mark this as a conjunction) though they don't align perfectly down to the exact degree: they sit almost five degrees apart. Doesn't that mean some kind of orb is being used to establish a cutoff point when determining aspects, even with respect to points?

Click to expand...

Points can receive aspects but they can't cast them (the original aspect doctrine has to do with reflecting light and points in space can't do that, but even modern Astrologers don't see the Ascendant as casting an aspect). However, if Mars is say 6 degrees from your Ascendant, then using the 8 degree orb it is in conjunction with the Ascendant. If Venus is 6 degrees on the opposite side, it too is in conjunction with the Ascendant but the orb range of Mars only takes it to degrees on Venus' side and ditto for Venus. As the Ascendant has no orbs of its own there is no middle spread of 8 degrees that would bring Mars and Venus together - Now if the Sun was exactly on your Ascendant then that would be different.

frac_ture said:

Do you mean that points don't count when speaking about stellia? Sorry for my confusion here...

Click to expand...

Yes!! Stellia are a combination of several stars (planets) at the same place. Points are not planets. So you can't have a stellium of say, Mars, Ascendant, Venus. you've just got a (possible) Mars/Venus conjunction and possibly not even that, given my point above.

The Medieval doctrine of orbs assigned them to planets in approximate proportion to their 'disc' size as viewed from Earth - so the Sun and the Moon got the biggest orbs, as the Ascendant can't be seen and has only theoretical existence, it can't have an orb (Modern Astrologers would concentrate on that last part about theoretical existence)

frac_ture said:

This is actually very helpful to hear...and I think ravenest was offering that kind of "artistic" feedback. I feel like I'm not advanced enough yet to have formed my own conclusions about things like what exact orbs "feel right" to me and such, but I appreciate hearing that some of what I've been banging my head against will require some subjective analysis rather than purely objective answers.

Click to expand...

You'll actually go through a variety of orb systems before you find one you're happy with, and even then you might still end up either refining it or discovering a new one, which seems better. It's the way we all proceed so don't worry about trying new systems just to see if the work or not for you.

frac_ture said:

I think I get this, too: you're saying "Mostly no to the 'opposition-by-extension-via-conjunction' thing in general, but occasionally maybe yes, varying on an individual case by case basis, so apply some critical evaluation in these instances." At least, that's what I seem to be getting from your answer, and that does seem like a good approach. I also appreciate your clarification regarding the "spectrum of effect" versus the "light-switch/binary effect" ways of looking at orbs and aspects (I definitely had been thinking of all this more in the light-switch kind of way, although without having consciously chosen to do so -- it's just how my early understanding was taking shape for whatever reasons).

Thanks again to both of you for your help!

Click to expand...

Everyone starts at the beginning and fights their way through what seems an insurmountable weight of ideas, concepts, and dogmas, so I sympathise with your situation, only too well. Reading and Doing charts and thinking about them is the best way foreward and of course asking questions here You'll always get responses and new things to think about.

PS - you never stop learning and changing your systems so don't be put off by seemingly having to learn a lot of stuff. We're all on the same journey and often we wander off down side roads to have a look at a new concept or idea (or even an old one) some we take note of, others we drop after a bit.

frac_ture said:

I'm glad my post made sense, and yes, I believe I understood yours, too. Thanks very much for weighing in!

Unless I'm off here, you're saying that the correct interpretive path does not involve sort of mentally merging the two conjunct planets into one "double planet." In my example, then, you wouldn't regard the Mercury-Venus conjunction as something along the lines of "Ven-Merc-us-ury." My early studies have involved a handful of websites and The Inner Sky by Steven Forrest, and somewhere among those resources, I got this notion that a conjunction might possibly be akin to pouring two different kinds of liquids into one container, resulting in a new and irreversibly blended liquid. It sounds like you (and Minderwiz) wouldn't go so far as all that, and that you'd still regard each planet as retaining its "individuality."

Click to expand...

No planet Mercurus or Venars ... although this can be done with the planetary metals (and even blend all 7 to make 'magicum electrum' ... but that is alchemy not astrology)
.
Think of this; you are having an ongoing debate with X ... X is married (conjunct) to Y ( XY together not some new letter that is both together) you are not having the debate with Y but Y effects X and hence his response to the debate ... in some areas maybe not at all ... in toher areas of debate maybe a lot ... is some cases your response to X may be modified by the fact that X is married to Y and in other situations it doesnt effect your debate. ... with some issues the conjunction might effect the opposition and in others not.

frac_ture said:

I also appreciate your clarification regarding the "spectrum of effect" versus the "light-switch/binary effect" ways of looking at orbs and aspects (I definitely had been thinking of all this more in the light-switch kind of way, although without having consciously chosen to do so -- it's just how my early understanding was taking shape for whatever reasons).

Click to expand...

yes I agee with this ... these energies do not seem to be working digital but in analouge; its not whether 'the signal' is on or off but relates to modulation and intensity of that signal (the first is the light switch the second the dimming dial under the switch, both can turn the light on and off).

Minderwiz and ravenest, thanks again to both of you -- these last two posts are supremely helpful for me!

I think the illustration you both used of thinking of the planets as being like people is really great for clarifying things here. People can work with or against each other in close proximity, but as you both point out, they won't simply simply merge into one new, two-headed, four-armed being. I believe this will enable me to move on now...until I hit my next sticking point.

Minderwiz, thanks also for explaining about how the points can receive aspects but not cast them. It does make sense the way you laid it out, and I needed it stated that explicitly, I guess, as I don't think any of the resources I've been using really said it so plainly. They mostly just talked about how the Ascendant or Midheaven, as examples, could be in aspect with planets, but they didn't draw any distinction about the receiving/casting part. That's great to know, as it does affect how I try to interpret the handful of charts I've been grappling with.

ravenest, I also appreciate the dimmer switch versus binary switch illustration, which is also tremendously helpful!

Orbs set by dividing the circle

One of the older astrologers, perhaps Marc Edmond Jones, suggested that orbs should be determined by the practice of dividing a circle in the manner that follows:

A conjunction between two planets does not divide a circle. So, assume you set an orb of eight degrees for this aspect.

An opposition divides the circle by two. This aspect would have an orb of 4 degrees.

A trine aspect divides a circle by three. This aspect would have an orb of 3 degrees by virtue of rounding off 8 degrees by 3.

A square aspect divides a circle by four. This aspect would have an orb of 2 degrees.

I should point out that many older books gave conjunctions of the Sun and Moon orbs of 12 or 15 degrees! This would give oppositions an 8 degree orb, trines a 5 degree orb, squares a 4 degree orb, sextiles a 2 degree orb. Of course, this rationale suggests that Sun and Moon be given larger orbs than other planets. If we consider degrees of orb as varying due to the closeness of a planet or the position of a planet in the solar system, we can end up with no coherent model ---- we are back to the "art of astrology" as Minderwz pointed out. Every one might have their personal preference. Of course, even that might have to be adjusted depending upon the type of charting you are doing. If using Ebertin's midpoint system you might choose 1 degree or even a half-degree. Dave

Good luck in your choices.

I'm not quite sure what Dave means by 'older' here, as Marc Edmund Jones is twentieth century (though I hasten to add he's older than me and I think older than Dave too) but he's right about the 'older' use of orbs of 12 or 15 degrees. In Hellenistic times (which is a long, long way before Marc Edmund Jones' they used a 15 degree orb for what they termed 'Assembly', a sort of intermediate conjunction between being simply in the same sign (but further apart than 15 degrees) and being less than 3 degrees apart which they termed 'co-presence'. If I can use ravenest's analogy, assembly is similar to the debate, where there's still freedom of movement to do other things, less than 3 degrees is analogous to someone being in your face.

My feeling is that orbs don't come from dividing circles, they come from the Sun and predate Horoscopic Astrology, deriving from Mesopotamian ideas (and possibly before that). My reasoning is that the 15 degrees was seen by the Greeks as the range of the 'beams of the Sun'.

Imagine Venus at 1 degree Taurus and the Sun at 20 degrees Taurus. If you got up early enough before sunrise, you'd see Venus rise over the eastern horizon and then some 20 minutes later or so, you'd see the Sun come up. But Venus is faster than the Sun (assuming it's Direct) and gradually it gets nearer to the Sun and the interval between Venus rising and the Sun rising becomes shorter. One morning you get up and there's no Venus before sunrise - it's so close that the Sun that it can't be seen. That 'helical setting' was seen as very significant in the ancient world and indeed it's still seen as important by many Astrologers. The original estimate for this 'fall into the Sun' was 15 degrees and this was widened in medieval times to 17 degrees. It became the Sun's 'orb' at that degree of separation or less the Sun clearly and visibly affected the planet(s) near it. I think this established the idea that proximity meant an effect and led to the belief if it worked for the Sun, it would work for the other planets when they approached each other.

Again during Medieval times this 17.5 degrees was divided into two - 8.5 degrees 'ahead' of the Sun and 8.5 degrees behind it - called 'moieties' and the concept was extended to the other planets, each of which gained orbs and 'moieties' (though with a smaller span than the Sun - for example the Moon had 12 degrees but Mercury had only 7 degrees.

Later still these orbs began to be attached to the aspect itself rather than the planet, hence fract_ure's use of 8 degrees fro a conjunction and 6 degrees for an opposition.

Which is right? Well all of them and none of them LOL - there's no absolute criterion by which we can judge MEJ's division of a circle idea. All that we can say is that relatively few Astrologer's have used it, or possibly that it's theoretical basis is uncertain, or that no one before him used it. None of those observations make it invalid but they might help a student think about the idea before adopting it. Thinking about your Astrology, is always a good thing

Thanks for the continued input and info here, both Dave and Minderwiz. It's fascinating stuff, although again, I still have no clue yet as to how I actually feel about any of it... I understand that it will just take some time and concerted effort, though, and I'll eventually land on some internal guidelines that feel right.

I think it's a really interesting notion to consider orbs riding with the planets rather than with the aspects! I'm probably opening a huge industrial-sized can of worms by even beginning to contemplate such a thing, but the idea has its appeal for some reason...

And I have definitely grasped early on that size of orbs used varies quite a lot from one astrologer to the next. I'm leaning right now toward maybe using narrower orbs, simply in self-defense! As an illustration of why I'd say that, when I run my own chart on Cafe Astrology, taking into consideration only the ten major planets and the Ascendant and Midheaven, and focusing only on the five major aspects (conjunction, opposition, square, trine, and sextile) that can occur among them...the program flags 21 such aspects. That's a lot for me to try to digest all at once! And then if I go over to Astro.com and use the same set of parameters...they apparently use even wider orbs, yielding no less than 27 aspects for me to consider, now including a T-Square and a Grand Trine! For now, until I get more interpretive experience under my belt, I'm feeling like less might be more...