Does conjunction cast aspects' nets wider?

Minderwiz

frac_ture said:
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...

I can well remember the feeling

Try breaking it down into manageable chunks. You could concentrate on, say Sun Moon and Ascendant (including planets in aspect) and then add in the remaining planets bit by bit. Alternatively go house by house and leave any integration to the end. Or start with angular planets.

Trying to deal with everything at once is a recipe for brain meltdown.

Eventually you'll find that you can handle more info at each stage

ravenest

frac_ture ; I may be wrong but I think you can adjust the programs you mentioned by de-selecting functions in the set up before the casting (dont show aspects to mid heaven, etc), that way you will get an easier, less complex chart to look at with the main planetary aspects shown. When you get used to that you can add the others.

frac_ture

Minderwiz said:
I can well remember the feeling

Try breaking it down into manageable chunks. You could concentrate on, say Sun Moon and Ascendant (including planets in aspect) and then add in the remaining planets bit by bit. Alternatively go house by house and leave any integration to the end. Or start with angular planets.

Trying to deal with everything at once is a recipe for brain meltdown.

Eventually you'll find that you can handle more info at each stage

I was trying to do the Sun, Moon, and Ascendant first, like you said, but my brain wants to add in a) the planets that are conjunct with those (that's three planets right there, and adding in other aspects makes the number swell rapidly), and b) "focalizers" as defined in The Inner Sky. I don't even know if that latter term is commonly employed throughout the hallways of Astrology, or if Steven Forrest made it up, but he's basically offering eight categories of circumstances that can elevate the importance of a planet to the point that it's difficult or impossible to ignore, perhaps even beginning to rival the "Primal Triad" as he calls the Sun, Moon, and Ascendant. His categories of focalizers include things like stellia, the ruler of the Ascendant, planets in the angular houses (and especially those conjunct the actual angles), planets conjunct the Sun... When I get done with that analysis, though, Jupiter is the only planet left in my chart that hasn't been tapped at least once, if not two or three times. I figure if I keep coming at it from different angles, though, and shift focus among my chart and the few others I'm studying, I'll start to get a sense of how to prioritize the flood of information...I may be pinging this board with more questions along the way, though! Fair warning...

ravenest said:
frac_ture ; I may be wrong but I think you can adjust the programs you mentioned by de-selecting functions in the set up before the casting (dont show aspects to mid heaven, etc), that way you will get an easier, less complex chart to look at with the main planetary aspects shown. When you get used to that you can add the others.

Oh, thanks, I hadn't thought of that! I did find one site -- I don't recall which now -- that lets you add in the apparently lower priority things like asteroids/planetoids (Ceres, Pallas, etc.) and points like the Part of Fortune and such, but I never checked to see if you could subtract from the default settings of any of these sites. That's a good idea... I may try that just to strip a chart down to basics, and then, like you said, start to build it back up...

Minderwiz

frac_ture said:
I was trying to do the Sun, Moon, and Ascendant first, like you said, but my brain wants to add in a) the planets that are conjunct with those (that's three planets right there, and adding in other aspects makes the number swell rapidly), and b) "focalizers" as defined in The Inner Sky. I don't even know if that latter term is commonly employed throughout the hallways of Astrology, or if Steven Forrest made it up, but he's basically offering eight categories of circumstances that can elevate the importance of a planet to the point that it's difficult or impossible to ignore, perhaps even beginning to rival the "Primal Triad" as he calls the Sun, Moon, and Ascendant. His categories of focalizers include things like stellia, the ruler of the Ascendant, planets in the angular houses (and especially those conjunct the actual angles), planets conjunct the Sun... When I get done with that analysis, though, Jupiter is the only planet left in my chart that hasn't been tapped at least once, if not two or three times. I figure if I keep coming at it from different angles, though, and shift focus among my chart and the few others I'm studying, I'll start to get a sense of how to prioritize the flood of information...I may be pinging this board with more questions along the way, though! Fair warning...

The term is, I think, peculiar to Forrest but the examples you cite are standard practice. Try just dealing with Asc, Moon and Sun on their own without any aspect connections or conjunctions. Do each one in turn and then try adding the three together to give a brief description of yourself. Ideally that should be no more than half a page. Don,t worry if the description is a bit 'out'.

Then begin to add in the aspects - Ascendant, Moon and Sun (I would do them in that order but it's not vital). Take it one planet at a time and ask yourself how it modifies your description. Finish each section by rewriting your description, now including all the planets you've added, i.e. Asc+aspects, Moon and Sun., then Asc+aspects, Moon+aspects and Sun, etc.

If there are a lot at each stage then leave out the outers, complete the exercise and then add them in as a final stage. That will make you think of each planet in turn and its contribution. When you've that finished then ypu can consider whether to emphasise the 'localizers' to make the description more accurate - be honest with yourself LOL.

frac_ture said:
Oh, thanks, I hadn't thought of that! I did find one site -- I don't recall which now -- that lets you add in the apparently lower priority things like asteroids/planetoids (Ceres, Pallas, etc.) and points like the Part of Fortune and such, but I never checked to see if you could subtract from the default settings of any of these sites. That's a good idea... I may try that just to strip a chart down to basics, and then, like you said, start to build it back up...

You might also consider downloading Morinus

https://sites.google.com/site/pymorinus/

Which is a free Astrology program and a bit more customisable. Make sure you get the full version, so ignore the link at the top of the page to the traditional version - that's something you can play with later.

Morinus contains no interpretations it's just charting software but that is what you need.

Edited to add:

All questions welcome

ravenest

Maybe too obvious, but really I think the best way is to draw up the chart yourself starting with the basic aspects you are working on first and then add the others. I like to make (not calculate, a programe does that for me) hand drawn and painted charts as well; using color correspondances for signs and planets and houses ... helped me to remember things. A friend has done the background of some charts she constructed as a type of dream / natal landscape (eg one with a Sun @ Asc; sunrise lightening the rest of the chart; a Moon shining on the waters of a Piscean sea)

Minderwiz

ravenest said:
Maybe too obvious, but really I think the best way is to draw up the chart yourself starting with the basic aspects you are working on first and then add the others. I like to make (not calculate, a programe does that for me) hand drawn and painted charts as well; using color correspondances for signs and planets and houses ... helped me to remember things. A friend has done the background of some charts she constructed as a type of dream / natal landscape (eg one with a Sun @ Asc; sunrise lightening the rest of the chart; a Moon shining on the waters of a Piscean sea)

Good point!!!

frac_ture

Thanks again for the continued advice, both of you. Minderwiz, I think I'm going to try the method you suggest, and I'll force myself to start with just the "Big Three," no matter how much all the conjunct planets clamor for attention...

I'll see how it goes by doing that and then slowly adding in more planets and aspects. Do you suggest the order of Ascendant ---> Moon ---> Sun because that's their order in terms of fastest-moving to slowest, and therefore you're prioritizing from the most personal/unique to least...?

I love the sound of the artwork your friend adds to charts, ravenest! I'll consider drawing up my own charts, although it may require a trip out for supplies (like a compass, so I can draw real circles -- my hand-drawn ones will always come out looking all lopsided and lumpy, and that won't help anyone...). I can see how that might make a lot of the information stick in one's head better, and how it could also simply nourish a connection with the material itself, so I may just see about trying this! Great suggestion!

And I do have another question concerning conjunction, although it might require its own thread...? It's this, though: if a planet is conjunct one of the angles -- and I guess I'm especially thinking of the Ascendant and Midheaven here -- does it affect both of the houses on either side of that angle? One website I've been using says that at least so far as the Ascendant is concerned, that a planet in the Twelfth House that's within four or five degrees of the Ascendant should be considered "to be on the 'dark side' of the First House, and its influence will be felt in the First as well as in the Twelfth House," and the site goes on to say, "The closer a Twelfth House planet is to the Ascendant, the more it will be interpreted as though it were in the First House; when less than 3° from the Ascendant, a Twelfth House planet will express itself primarily—and eventually entirely—in the First House." Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself by getting hung up on this notion, but two of the four charts I've started off with have this phenomenon occurring, with a planet being in the Twelfth House and less than three degrees from the Ascendant...and to be honest, one of the charts is mine, and I feel like the writer of that website is on to something, at least in my case, as this theory applied to my chart versus the real me seems to be very accurate!

So this leads me to wonder if a) what he says is an at least somewhat known and credited concept among astrologers, b) if the planets can be held to "shine through" from one House to the next if close enough to the border that separates them, and c) if so, does that apply to other House cusps as well, or just the angles...? Or are the barriers between Houses never regarded as being "porous" in this way? I can say that so far out of the main book I've been using and the dozen or so websites I consult, this one website is the only place I've yet seen this notion of a Twelfth House planet expressing itself into the First House, but I'd love any feedback on the matter here!

Minderwiz

frac_ture said:
Thanks again for the continued advice, both of you. Minderwiz, I think I'm going to try the method you suggest, and I'll force myself to start with just the "Big Three," no matter how much all the conjunct planets clamor for attention... I'll see how it goes by doing that and then slowly adding in more planets and aspects. Do you suggest the order of Ascendant ---> Moon ---> Sun because that's their order in terms of fastest-moving to slowest, and therefore you're prioritizing from the most personal/unique to least...?

One of the perils of starting a thread is it takes on a life of it's own LOL.

I suggested the order of Ascendant, Moon, Sun because I work as a traditional Astrologer, and that is the order of consideration when examining temperament (character) but it's not written in stone so you can really do it in any order you like. The reasoning traditionally is that the Ascendant is 'You' and 'you' come first - the rest of the chart shows your relationship to the world around you, The Moon is the planet nearest to Earth and it 'deals' with what goes on on Earth, whereas the Sun rules what goes on in the Sky - if you like the Sun organises and the Moon mediates.

frac_ture said:
And I do have another question concerning conjunction, although it might require its own thread...? It's this, though: if a planet is conjunct one of the angles -- and I guess I'm especially thinking of the Ascendant and Midheaven here -- does it affect both of the houses on either side of that angle? One website I've been using says that at least so far as the Ascendant is concerned, that a planet in the Twelfth House that's within four or five degrees of the Ascendant should be considered "to be on the 'dark side' of the First House, and its influence will be felt in the First as well as in the Twelfth House," and the site goes on to say, "The closer a Twelfth House planet is to the Ascendant, the more it will be interpreted as though it were in the First House; when less than 3° from the Ascendant, a Twelfth House planet will express itself primarily—and eventually entirely—in the First House." Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself by getting hung up on this notion, but two of the four charts I've started off with have this phenomenon occurring, with a planet being in the Twelfth House and less than three degrees from the Ascendant...and to be honest, one of the charts is mine, and I feel like the writer of that website is on to something, at least in my case, as this theory applied to my chart versus the real me seems to be very accurate!

So this leads me to wonder if a) what he says is an at least somewhat known and credited concept among astrologers, b) if the planets can be held to "shine through" from one House to the next if close enough to the border that separates them, and c) if so, does that apply to other House cusps as well, or just the angles...? Or are the barriers between Houses never regarded as being "porous" in this way? I can say that so far out of the main book I've been using and the dozen or so websites I consult, this one website is the only place I've yet seen this notion of a Twelfth House planet expressing itself into the First House, but I'd love any feedback on the matter here!

I use the 5 degree 'rule' - It has it's origins in Medieval times, so it has a long history. I don't use it in the way you describe, I simply treat a planet that is less than 5 degrees from a house cusp as being in the following house - So, for example, my Saturn lies at 21 Leo and my Ascendant is 23 Leo. I find Saturn is definitely first house for me - it's not hidden or acting behind the scenes, or concerned with traditional associations like large animals, slaves, or enemies, or prisons and hospitals - it exhibits itself constantly through my daily activity. Similarly I have Moon at 21 Aquarius and Descendant at 23 Aquarius (of course

) and my Moon definitely acts through my seventh house - indeed despite the fact she wouldn't agree, my wife is a lunar person (Cancer Ascendant, Moon in Pisces). I use the same approach to horary readings and indeed all my chart work - except for those times that I'm using Whole Sign Houses, or if the cusp of the following house is in a different sign - I don't allow a planet to 'cross the sign boundary' in those cases.

This issue can become involved, as there are many different house systems, and what is within 5 degrees in Placidus (for example) might not be within 5 degrees in Porphyry or Regiomontanus. But now you're moving into advance stuff. If you think the 5 degrees rule makes sense then use it and keep using it, till you find exceptions that will enable you to guage how useful it is.

ravenest

frac_ture said:
Do you suggest the order of Ascendant ---> Moon ---> Sun because that's their order in terms of fastest-moving to slowest, and therefore you're prioritizing from the most personal/unique to least...?

I like to start with the Sun and Moon as the self polarity; in Hermetics the Sun Moon 'conjoined' is one of the works required. To me one thing it represents is the Concious and the Unconcious.

Personally, I see the ascendant as important if I can get a ruling planet from there (to give the conjoining a specific theme) or, depending on the type of chart, an individual star or asterism.

Next I look at the inner planets Mercury, Venus and Mars. They, to me, hold a triangular relationship around the Moon (in relation to the psyche); Mars and Venus relating to 'psychological drives' and their regulation by Mercury (which is the link between the conjoining Sun Moon - Mercury being the messenger of Sol and also the Psychopomp - able to journey to the underworld-the unconcious). Then an image or hint of the Ego starts to emerge.

Later I add the Saturn/Jupiter 'gateway' or 'valve' (with Chiron placed above or below this) as a regulator between inner and outer; personal and transpersonal planets and then the outer planets in a similar triangular realtionship as the inner plaets, as a 'higher reflection', thern examine the transpersonal infuences for a look at the 'super-ego'. I see the aspects as clear, blocked, difficult, helpfull, etc. pathways between those functions and how they link and work together.

It IS a personal and 'mytho-psychological' system but I find it works well as a gradual bulid up of comprehension for us beginers who cant get the whole thing in a 'snapshot vision.' - Like some of you others seem to be able to

. ... in some ways it is a bit like buiding up a jigsaw puzzle ... sometimes it is a simple picture other times soooo complex and layered.

frac_ture

Wow, interesting. Minderwiz, I think when you say that this is getting more advanced, I can see how that must be true! I'm just now finally starting to get my head around planets/signs/houses and how, say, Mars and Aries and the First House aren't exactly "more or less the same thing as each other" (although various resources seem to like offering that up as an easy shorthand for beginners, which I now think has possibly caused me more harm than good...). But I think that trying to consider additional, different House systems at the moment would shoot gaping holes in my progress! The 5 Degree Rule is interesting, though, and I need to ponder these kinds of situations. As I mentioned, I have one such example in my chart, and another from someone close to me does, too, so I do have a couple of real life examples to study.

ravenest, your system is really intriguing... Mercury the planet functioning as a psychopomp, much like Mercury the god, is a really neat way of looking at things! I'm also not sure if I've seen Jupiter and Saturn treated as the gateway or valve that you deem them, although I can see the reasoning behind it, now that you bring it up here. I admire the way you've arrived at a system that works for you (you still self-label as a "beginner"...?

). I think I need to just really crank through a bunch of charts, and then hopefully my own system will start to coalesce in my head. I mean, I eventually found my own way with Tarot, and I feel like I'm making great strides with Runes, too, so while astrology seems like a vastly larger and more complex undertaking than those, I feel like patience and hard work and perseverance will pay off...

And I did spend some time today just writing up my own "Big Three" as suggested here, and tomorrow will start adding in their aspects as best I can. I'm finding my grasp on how to actually interpret the effects of aspects to be not the firmest grasp ever, though, as of yet...probably fodder for another thread as I continue to gather up questions...