posted June 24, 2015 10:31 PM            

Is a semi-sextile with a 5° orb enough to make a planet aspected?

posted June 24, 2015 10:35 PM            

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted June 24, 2015 11:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gemini Blues:
Thanks. I guess I'll check out unaspected sun and see if it fits.

---

Yes, I have articles on Unaspected planets and I think one on the Sun, too.

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted June 25, 2015 08:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gemini Blues:
Mars @ 27° Tau
Sun @ 22° Gem

Is a semi-sextile with a 5° orb enough to make a planet aspected?

If not, both are unaspected unless you count Chiron sq Sun with a 4° orb... but asteroids, even one like Chiron, aren't supposed to count either.

---

No.

Don't bother with the concept of 'unaspected.' No aspect = no meaning, no interpretation. Besides, most of these chart situations involving a supposedly unaspected planet, don't actually exist. Minor aspects count as Ami mentions, but most of the time there is at least one aspect in declination involving the planet(s) in question.

posted June 25, 2015 10:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kannon McAfee:
No.

Don't bother with the concept of 'unaspected.' No aspect = no meaning, no interpretation. Besides, most of these chart situations involving a supposedly unaspected planet, don't actually exist. Minor aspects count as Ami mentions, but most of the time there is at least one aspect in declination involving the planet(s) in question.

---

posted June 25, 2015 10:53 PM            

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted June 27, 2015 04:12 PM            

It isn't Venus, which is parallel Jupiter, which alone expands the Venusian principle.

The entire notion of 'unaspected' attempts to invalidate minor aspects as if they aren't good enough to allow expression of the energies of one or both planets. But one has an entire lifetime for such things to play out. AND the concept was formulated in a period of a vaccuum of declinations in modern astrology practice. It found lasting adherence based on studies by former-astrologer-turned-skeptic Geoffrey Dean and E.A. Moore, whose work agreed that the planetary principle remains unchanged by lack of major aspects.

Fred Gettings says in The Arkana Dictionary of Astrology:

quote:

---

... If a wide orb is allowed for the major aspects, the unaspected planets are quite rare. Some astrologers maintain that planets unaspected by the major aspects are all the more susceptible to the influences of the minor aspects.

---

And that is where the corruption of astrology into its modern pop form takes us -- ignoring so-called minor aspects as if 'minor' meant less important, therefore not important enough to teach/learn. This is really because minor aspects are not as quickly and easily recognizable in the circle wheel since they don't happen at 30-degree/sign intervals.

In my view this concept should be thrown on the trash heap next to 'singletons', which is at the bottom of the heap of modern pop astrology nonsense.