posted October 31, 2003 02:51 PM            

I have been wondering about this as well. For example, I have Mars Square Neptune, where my Mars is in Pisces and Neptune is in Scorpio. One theory in astrology is that the degree is an absolute, whereas another theory in astrology is that one needs to base it on the sign as that sign dictates the potential actions.

This is what I found on one site:

However, I do recommend that the aspects be read from the perspective of the sign rather than the planet. For instance a planet in Aries is in trine to a planet in Sagittarius regardless of the actual degree positions of the two planets because Aries is in trine to Sagittarius. This is because the planet expresses itself in that sign position through it's essential dignity (or lack thereof) in testifying to the cosmic soul about the natives activities. For the same reason, a planet at 1 degree Taurus is not trine a planet at 29 degrees Leo, even though they are 118 degrees apart, but rather this is considered to be a very weak square. It is important to note that the Greeks did not use orbs. This was a later innovation by the Arabs which got translated into the medieval tradition. The only way in which the degree is to be considered is in judging how strong an influence it is on the relationship. A close aspect within 3 degrees is very noticable while an aspect that is wide by nearly 30 degrees may tend to be a minor issue. Only the Ptolemaic aspects and conjunctions will be delineated along with the aversions. An aversion is the same thing as what a modern astrologer calls an inconjunct or quincunx (in signs 30 or 150 degrees apart). Aversions are useful because they show a lack of acknowledgement, which often means a lack of relationship.

http://www.horoscope-x-files.com/synastry/synastry-intro.htm

posted October 31, 2003 03:15 PM              

Yes, Miss Prox poses some good food for thought here, indeed.
I think I've been to the sight you're quoting from here, it's a gooder. I have some questions about that blurb you pasted, though...maybe you can help clarify, maybe not.

"Only the Ptolemaic aspects and conjunctions will be delineated along with the aversions."
1. What are ptolemaic aspects?
2. What exactly does 'delineated' mean?

"Aversions are useful because they show a lack of acknowledgement, which often means a lack of relationship"

So, does that mean 30 degrees and 150 degrees, give or take a couple, regardless of sign, are considered "aversions", even if the signs involved are sextile in nature?

posted November 01, 2003 12:42 PM            

I think they are referring to Ptolemy's calculation and assignment of degree in which is considered to be a "conjunction" or other aspect. Some astrologer are looser in their assigment while others are more stringent.

Dilineation means to draw a line or conclusion and in this case the author is stating that he will use only Ptolemy's calculations / interpretations to draw his conclusions.

The author is also basing most things on "sign" not degree. So if a loose sextile is formed that would otherwise be a "square" by calculation, he assumes that it is still a sextile, but isn't as potent. In the same respect, an late degree Leo is not going to form a trine with an early degree Taurus. They still own the signs traits. I look at my own Mars. It is BARELY in Pisces, but it is still showing traits from that sign and not Aquarius.

The Aversions mean that the planet simply cannot see the other. There is no acknowledgement. I think Linda Goodman sought to overcome that logic by using the evolution principle in which other signs learn from the sign after it and therefore form some recognition. I agree, but I can see where they author comes to the conclusion s(based on theories from many, many, many moons ago).

It is all very interesting. I think I am going to the bookstore today to check out some things. I LOVE books.

posted November 09, 2003 09:24 PM              

I believe this may be the case with my own Venus, as it's a 29deg Leo, but it's in the 9th house along with Jupiter, Pluto, and Uranus at 9, 21, & 26 deg Virgo. So, it would appear, judging by my history with the Virgos (see Pidaua's thread about ascendants), that my Venus is more Virgo than Leo.
The same may hold true for planets in late degrees in the 12house, within 10 degrees or less of the ascendant. They seem to be drawn into the ascendant's sign energy. I believe this may also be the case with my sweetie's Venus at 29 deg Cancer, so close to his 3 deg Leo ascendant. (with my Mars a 1 deg Leo....yup, he maka me crazy )