dual cosmodyne score of 79.29?

blisslala

Hi guys!

I just did a synastry report on this guy I started seeing, and it said our dual cosmodyne score is +79.29....

I'm really unfamiliar with the concept of this score, I just found out it existed today!

I read that +10 is the minimum for average harmony.

Am I doing something wrong or is this guy my soulmate?

my moon is conjuct with his sun, and his moon is opposite my sun, if that helps?

Any input is appreciated! :]
 

Minderwiz

Don't take any notice of it!

It's not that cosmodynes (sometimes called astrodynes0 are rubbish or Allen Edwall's application of them to synsastry is rubbish but that any attempt to reduce an astrological reading to a single number is rubbish. At best it could be treated as a summary of more thorough analysis but unless you understand what lies behind it and why the weightings are as they are (which in themselves are open to question) and the simplifications that lied behind the analysis, you are in danger of being totally misled.

Cosmodynes are not mainstream Astrology but they are based on mainstream ideas. In particular they are based on the relative strength of planets in themselves, their house placements and the aspects they form with other planets. Little of that is disputed. What is open to dispute is the relative values of the planets. Modern Astrology tends to put the Sun as the most important followed by the Moon and then in reducing order down to Pluto though that ranking is open to a lot of argument in the middle and bottom of the table. Traditional Astrology gives more weight to the Ascendant ruler, than Modern, which usually ignores it (and that's certainly the case with Cosmodynes).

The ranking of the houses is also something that is not completely established. Virtually every list starts with the Ascendant and the MC but not all of them follow on with the DSC and the IC, some rank the Eleventh above the IC. What is the weakest house? The sixth, eighth and twelfth are usually seen as the weakest but whether they should run in that order is not totally agreed. So once you apply number weights to planets that are not fully agreed in rank, and to houses that are not totally agreed in ranking then multiplying one by another can give variations that would be disputed by a lot of Astrologers.

How do you weight aspects? Why use ten and not six, or sixteen? Is a square to the right more powerful than a square to the left? Modern Astrology doesn't distinguish between left and right square, trines and sextiles but the Tradition does, and for good reason. Are squares always disharmonious and negative? are trines always harmonious and positive?

What about other Modern planetary relationships such as midpoints, or Traditional links such as the Lots?

Dual cosmodynes attempts to apply these questionable numerical conclusions to synastry. If there's error in the first scores (and there is) then applying them to two people assesed together will multiply that error exponentially. The skill of the Astrologer is needed here, not a calculator or computer program.

Attempting to reduce things to numbers has been around since the Medieval period. Ibn Ezra invented a mathematicla measure to calculate the most important planet in a chart (Almuten of the Chart) but even if it's a useful indicator it suffers from the same fault as any single indicator. It disguises a multitude of relevant variation.

If I was you, I'd start from natal analysis and if you're a beginner, then spend a lot of time on this. Try variations in your method and do a lot of thinking.

When you're happy you can do this consistently, accurately and know why you are doing what you are doing , then you can start comparing charts and looking at issues of synastry.

A couple of final points to think about - Does a lack of disharmony improve relationships or do you need something to spark of each other?

If you were buying a new car, and would you buy one solely based on it scoring t 95% in a magazine (and no other information at all)?
 

Etene

Is a square to the right more powerful than a square to the left? Modern Astrology doesn't distinguish between left and right square, trines and sextiles but the Tradition does, and for good reason.
Deborah Houlding cites an example and includes a diagram that indicates the moon as casting an aspect to Saturn and Mercury and which is left and right. Is the moon regarded as casting because it has the greatest velocity? Suppose Venus and Jupiter in aspect with Venus slowing, would the nature of the aspect shift from Venus casting to Jupiter one way to Jupiter casting to Venus the other during the period when Venus stations? I see the speed of planets being mentioned in the older texts, but rarely are they clear if "faster" means "more positive" or "more different from stationary", or if they're speaking of mean motion, as indicated by Chaldean order.

Also, in that diagram, Moon square Saturn is being cast by the Moon, the dominating planet is Saturn, and it's marked as the more powerful and direct Dexter arrangement. Does that mean that aspects are by nature stronger when the slower planet also dominates? Does this mean that the effect of the aspect will express itself in saturnine ways, while the other diagram aspect, dominating moon in sinister square with Mercury, would be both less effective and more lunar than mercurial?
 

Minderwiz

Deborah Houlding cites an example and includes a diagram that indicates the moon as casting an aspect to Saturn and Mercury and which is left and right. Is the moon regarded as casting because it has the greatest velocity? Suppose Venus and Jupiter in aspect with Venus slowing, would the nature of the aspect shift from Venus casting to Jupiter one way to Jupiter casting to Venus the other during the period when Venus stations? I see the speed of planets being mentioned in the older texts, but rarely are they clear if "faster" means "more positive" or "more different from stationary", or if they're speaking of mean motion, as indicated by Chaldean order.

Also, in that diagram, Moon square Saturn is being cast by the Moon, the dominating planet is Saturn, and it's marked as the more powerful and direct Dexter arrangement. Does that mean that aspects are by nature stronger when the slower planet also dominates? Does this mean that the effect of the aspect will express itself in saturnine ways, while the other diagram aspect, dominating moon in sinister square with Mercury, would be both less effective and more lunar than mercurial?

I have grave doubts about Deb's explanation. She bases that on the reasoning of the later medieval Astrologers, and especially Lilly. However if you look at Hellenistic and early Medieval Astrology, the situation is quite different.

A dexter aspect cast by a planet is to its right, irrespective of speed, though that will affect whether the aspect is applying or separating.

A dexter aspect is cast against the order of signs. Valens, Sahl and Masha'allah are explicitly clear on this.

A sinister aspect is cast to the left of the planet, that is in the order of signs. Consider a chart in which The Moonin Cancer is in the tenth house and Saturn in Libra is on the Ascendant. The Moon is casting a Sinister square aspect to Saturn. because Saturn lies to the left of the Moon in the chart. Saturn on the other hand is casting a dexter aspect to the Moon because the Moon lies to its right in the chart. Now rotating the chart will not alter the relative positions of Moon and Saturn. The Moon is still in Cancer and Saturn is still in Libra.

Sinister aspects are seen as stronger than dexter aspects, so the aspect cast by the Moon is stronger than the aspect cast by Saturn and the Moon overcomes Saturn. In his introduction to Astrology Sahl writes:

The square aspect is from the fourth sign and the tenth (Sahl used whole sign houses)... and the second square aspect that is which comes from the tenth) is stronger than the first square aspect

For brevity I've missed out his references to sextiles and trines but in both cases the aspect in the direction of signs is take as the stronger one.

Now a couple of centuries afterwards Al Biruni, in The Book of Instruction in the Elements of the Art of Astrology gives virtually the same example as Sahl but appears (because his description is not quite as explicit as Sahl's) to reverses the strength of the aspects. It seems that there was either miscopying or mistranslation between the early Medieval Astrologerrs (who seemed to know their Hellenistic Astrology) and the later ones. I know Deb denies that such a shift occurred.

I know, because I've read the thread on Skyscript, that Deb claims that the Hellenistic version isn't really what is meant by sinister and dexter and took someone who did know his Hellenistic Astrology to task fro claiming otherwise.

So you have two definitions, which are diametrically opposite of these terms. Who is right? Well it's possible to argue that the Hellenistic Astrologers who invented Astrology and Sahl and Masha'allah who used their work didn't understand their own system.

Alternatively one can try the Deb argument and claim that the two definitions are of different things. Deb bases her argument on the Solar/Lunar cycle but I think that she is really talking about another form of strength. The waxing Moon and the Waning Moon.

But consider the situation with Sun and Saturn. On Deb's argument the Sun in Cancer applying to Saturn in Libra should be overcome by Saturn and not vice versa. It seems to me that she's confusing the solar cycle of planets with the direction that aspects are cast. It's the only way to attempt yo square the versions of Lilly and Al Biruni with a rationale that yields the dexter aspect as the stronger.

Incidentally I don't expect Deb to yield on this point she follows the later Medieval approach and we either accept that the definition changed over time or we try some way of testing which is actually stronger. But there are so many variables at work that I think that would be impossible.

Incidentally my point in my original post is that Modern Astrology treats both squares (both sextiles and trines) as of equal strength and that's built into Cosmodynes but for a practitioner of Traditional Astrology the two are not equal.
 

Etene

The Moon is casting a Sinister square aspect to Saturn. because Saturn lies to the left of the Moon in the chart. Saturn on the other hand is casting a dexter aspect to the Moon because the Moon lies to its right in the chart.
...
Sinister aspects are seen as stronger than dexter aspects, so the aspect cast by the Moon is stronger than the aspect cast by Saturn and the Moon overcomes Saturn.
My mistake was in thinking of "the aspect" as one thing connecting two planets instead of two things in the same place. This also suggests to me that the concept of a dominating planet is where the correct sinister-is-stronger reasoning "went" when the dexter/sinister error switched them. Maybe because dexter/sinister's associations with "good" and "bad" respectively made having the sinister aspect be stronger seem wrong?

Maternus said:
If Saturn and Jupiter are in square aspect and Saturn is above, holding the upper degree of a right square, but Jupiter lower, in a left square, they indicate difficulties in life...
But if Jupiter is above and holds the right side while Saturn is located in the left square, the misfortunes are lessened...
Is it therefore correct to understand "in the right square" as being on the right side and vice versa, and "the upper degree" being another way to state this? I'm wary about the "the upper degree" statement because I can imagine a few ways to (mis)interpret that.

Also, does reception and dignity factor into interpretation of an aspect this way? This year we have Jupiter casting sinister square to Saturn, which Maternus and this corrected aspect doctrine gives as the better way to have it, however with Jupiter receiving by domicile but in detriment, how does this compare to for example Jupiter in Sagittarius square Saturn in Pisces?

Looking at world news these days, a detriment Jupiter is not up to the task of keeping this Saturn+Mars in Sagittarius thing under control.
 

Minderwiz

My mistake was in thinking of "the aspect" as one thing connecting two planets instead of two things in the same place. This also suggests to me that the concept of a dominating planet is where the correct sinister-is-stronger reasoning "went" when the dexter/sinister error switched them. Maybe because dexter/sinister's associations with "good" and "bad" respectively made having the sinister aspect be stronger seem wrong?

Sinister is Latin for Left and Dexter is Latin for Right.

You are quite right that these terms now have connotations that they did not have in the Hellenistic period (which includes Maternus, who you mention below). I think it's probably best to use Left and Right instead of the old Latin terms, even though they were used (or translated as such) from the old Greek, Latin and Arabic texts.

It took me some time to get the idea clear in my head, because the terms are relative to the planets involved. Thus in my previous example with Moon in the tenth and Saturn in the first, the two planets are in a square aspect and that is as far as Modern Astrology would take it.

The Tradition would see that from Saturn's point of view, the Moon is to its Right and therefore it's a square to the right. But from the Moon's point of view, Saturn lies to its Left and therefore it's a square to the left. One aspect but two different views.

Etene said:
Is it therefore correct to understand "in the right square" as being on the right side and vice versa, and "the upper degree" being another way to state this? I'm wary about the "the upper degree" statement because I can imagine a few ways to (mis)interpret that.

The Hellenistic Astrologers and Sahl and Masha'allah used the example of one planet in the tenth house and one on the Ascendant, though this applies to any situation where rotating the chart would produce that result.

They refer to the tenth as the upper place and the Ascendant as the lower place and looking at this in a chart you can see why. As far as I can see from the translations I have, the specific degree of the sign isn't really relevant in the way we would understand it now. What matters is that the degree the planet is placed in is earlier in the zodiac for a left square. Thus any degree in Cancer is earlier than any degree in Libra. So in my example the Moon in Cancer is in the upper degree, in the sense that the tenth house is earlier in the zodiac compared to the first.

There is one proviso to this and hopefully it's obvious. The zodiac is a circle and circles don't have a beginning or an end. Thus the sign of Pisces rises before the sign of Aries and the Sun and any other planet ingress into Aries from Pisces.

So a planet placed in the tenth house in Aquarius is still in a Left square to a plant placed in Taurus on the Ascendant, even though the linear view of the zodiac is that Aquarius comes after Taurus.

Etene said:
Also, does reception and dignity factor into interpretation of an aspect this way? This year we have Jupiter casting sinister square to Saturn, which Maternus and this corrected aspect doctrine gives as the better way to have it, however with Jupiter receiving by domicile but in detriment, how does this compare to for example Jupiter in Sagittarius square Saturn in Pisces?

Looking at world news these days, a detriment Jupiter is not up to the task of keeping this Saturn+Mars in Sagittarius thing under control.

Yes, you have to consider all factors when interpreting a configuration of two or more planets. Thus individual planets in the aspect configuration can be strengthened or weakened, aside from the aspect itself. Reception does count because an aspect to a malefic would be mitigated and an aspect to a benefic would be strengthened through Reception. Similarly being Retrograde would weaken one of the planets in an aspect configuration. The sect of the chart is important. Jupiter in a night chart is less benefic than it is in a day chart. Planets in their own domiciles or exaltations are stronger than in their detriments or falls. Planets that are enclosed by malefics are weakened, planets that are enclosed by benefics are strengthened. Applying aspects, especially within three degrees are more powerful than separating aspects and so on.

Many aspects that you look at will have several of these factors and you need to weigh them all to reach a conclusion. What you are looking for is which planet will be the stronger influence in a configuration and what will be the outcome.