posted June 10, 2015 01:21 AM            

When looking at my chart, I see that if I were born 6 days later, I would have a HUGE amount more trines instead of squares.Just seems odd, like why would degrees exist in the first place. why not say something like, oh I'm 30% square here, and 100% square there...when it's just a square by a few degrees shouldn't we say like oh I'm just 5% square here. Instead it seems we jump on squares, trines, etc. like they're 100% dead on middle of the degrees. I think degrees would play a huge role...like either lessing/increasing the power of trines and squares.

Or does it not matter?? Is it like depending on entirely on the fact that it's still within that sign and the degrees just get washed out?

posted July 11, 2015 07:46 AM            

Nothing in astrology is set in stone. There are varied opinions on the number of aspects that are significant and on the orb necessary for an aspect to be recognised as such.

Some astrologers even include aspects by sign alone in their interpretations. A lot of the classic Sun Sign books/articles/compatibility writings as well as weekly/monthly/yearly horoscopes (looking at transits) are based primarily on the energy of the signs.
It's impossible to take exact aspects into account when you aim to write about a wide group of people, so these interpretations are never exact - but they can still be helpful by identifying general themes that play a role in one's life.

quote:

---

If I were born 6 days later, I would have a HUGE amount more trines instead of squares.Just seems odd, like why would degrees exist in the first place. why not say something like, oh I'm 30% square here, and 100% square there...

---

People/astrologers generally go on experience, when it comes to these things. Many astrologers would actually say something similar to what you said here. Aspects are considered stronger or weaker, depending on how close they are to being exact. Some of the trines you mentioned, might still be considered trines six days later... It really depends on the planets you are looking at and their speed.

If a Mars/Jupiter trine was exact 6 days ago... it would still be considered a trine today, but it's influence would be slightly weaker.
With faster moving celestial bodies, like the Moon ("moving" from our perspective, on Earth)... ^ this is obviously not possible. If you have an exact Moon/Venus trine at 11am on any particular day - you'll no longer have that aspect by 11am the next day - let alone 6 days later, when the Moon has already travelled half-way across the zodiac.

But I guess you're wondering why we don't consider more than one aspect between two points. For instance, if a person has a Leo Moon at 15 degrees... and a Mars in Aries at 29 degrees.. I guess your question is: 'Would this be more of a trine or more of a square, or could it be considered both, i.e. 50% trine and 50% square?"
And if that same person had Mars very early in Taurus, rather than late Aries - how would that change things?

You're right in saying that technically ^ that aspect could be considered a trine, with an orb of 15 deg, or alternatively - a square, with an orb of 15 deg. This is precisely why the orbs used are never so wide. It would cause a lot of confusion to use such wide orbs and refer to two planets as being both trine and square at the same time... or to say they are somewhat squared (50% squared) and somewhat trined (50% trined).

You asked "why" we do things this way. The best answer to this is custom, experience and because it seems to work! 😊
As you get into astrology you learn every aspect has a vibe of its own, so it doesn't really morph into another aspect. The tighter the orb, the more obvious and clearer the energy of the aspect is.
Trine energy and square energy are so different, it's almost impossible to confuse one with the other. A trine will never feel like a square... and a square will never feel like a trine. It's almost like comparing a pastel colour with an intense red colour... The pastel is calming, relaxing, easy on the eyes. The red is vibrant, passionate, potentially aggressive. They are just very different energies.

quote:

---

why not say something like, oh I'm 30% square here, and 100% square there...when it's just a square by a few degrees shouldn't we say like oh I'm just 5% square here. Instead it seems we jump on squares, trines, etc. like they're 100% dead on middle of the degrees. I think degrees would play a huge role...like either lessing/increasing the power of trines and squares.

---

There's another reason why we don't do this. Quite apart from the five major aspects: conjunction, opposition, trine, square, sextile... there are multiple other minor aspects. Some astrologers use all of them, while others only use the most common/well-known ones.
So, if two planets are at particular degrees - and they don't form an exact major aspect - it's possible they do form a minor aspect. In that case it wouldn't be correct to say "this is a very wide major aspect" - when it might actually be an exact minor aspect.

This a list of minor aspects: http://www.universalsky.com/Articles/Astrology/Aspects/Minor/minor_aspects_in_astrology.htm

Don't worry about it if you don't understand all of this yet, because it's a lot to take in. I think minor aspects are actually a pretty cool part of astrology and something you'd probably like reading about. Some of them are pretty interesting! You could do some research and google them individually when you have the time. You won't be disappointed
You're welcome to ask me any questions if there is anything you don't understand!

quote:

---

Or does it not matter?? Is it like depending on entirely on the fact that it's still within that sign and the degrees just get washed out?

---

The degrees should never get 'washed out' in my opinion, and in the opinion of a great majority of astrologers out there.

However, as I was saying earlier, a minority of astrologers do use aspects by sign alone. In my example above, some might actually say that a Leo Sun is always in a trine-like relationship towards an Aries Mars, and always in a square-like relationship towards a Taurus Mars (irrespective of degrees).

There is some truth to this ^ but it's not exactly accurate... at least not in my take on things.
What happens is - each planet manifests it's energy in a particular way, through a particular sign, in a particular house and so on.
An Aries Mars has a particular vibe, particular personality characteristics, appearance, behaviour etc. A Taurus Mars is actually very different in manifestation to an Aries Mars.
Whether we are talking about a 5 degree Aries Mars, a 29 degree Aries Mars... a 10 degree Taurus Mars or a 00'01 degree Taurus Mars.... one is still fire/Aries - and the other is earth/Taurus. Purely in virtue of this unique energy each placement has... one of them (the Aries energy) is more compatible with fellow fire sign Leo. This compatibility exists in a sense, independently of any aspects. Both are fire placements and there are some important similarities between them in virtue of that.

A very early Leo placement (close to the Cancer cusp) could be square by degree to a very late Aries placement. These planets would be considered compatible by sign, but incompatible by aspect. For someone new to astrology, this kind of set-up can be pretty confusing.
What happens in my experience is that - the elemental compatibility between the two placements greatly lessens the influence of the square... so there is more affection and mutual understanding present (despite the quarrelsome square influence).

The opposite situation can also occur... when you have something like an early Taurus placement trine a very late Sagittarius placement (close to the Capricorn cusp). These placements would be considered compatible by aspect, but incompatible by sign.
Again, purely in my experience... what happens is that even though the two placements are extremely different and don't have much common ground - the trine aspect gives them a kind of link and the ability to work together. Things run more smoothly between them than they would, if the aspect was to be an exact quincunx.

So basically - the signs are relevant, and the degrees (and aspects thereof) are likewise relevant. It's a big picture thing. The compatibility between any two placements is a mix of: signs, house placements, the aspect linking them, other aspects to other planets etc.

posted August 08, 2015 01:23 PM            

Yes even if you were born six days later, other aspects would have been formed, because your planets would have entered the "magnetic field" of other planets, but at the point where you are, you are too far to feel the pull.
You can't say, you are pulled at 30% of the strength of the magnet. You feel the pull, and the further you go from the planet, the less you feel it until you don't anymore, which marks the point where you are out of orb, and then out of aspect. The pull is non existent even if the planets are only four degree too far.