posted September 21, 2009 04:06 PM            

and shortly after reading i applied this to a synastry where i was really wondering what is the connection here, because i knew there had to be something more i just couldnt put my finger on it. i saw that her nodal axis was conj his mc/ic, and really didnt pay much attention to that, but now i notice that with his sun/moon conj (out of sign) his mc, with the sun being the ruler of his ic - just how important this axis is for him - because whenever another has any axis conj it will bring out his sun moon ic mc and ic ruler. and that is 10 connections right there if noting both the conjunctions and oppositions, i never noticed how tightly bound that axis was for him, so thank you DD for bringing this to attention.

keep in mind that he was very attracted to her but because of circumstances they were not able to meet and be as close as he would have liked, and i kept it in my files but really the rest of the synastry is mainly strewn with saturn and squares so it didnt make a lot of sense, as the squares didnt fill in any grand crosses and saturn isnt really very strong for either of them, now i see just how important that axis is for him and it relates to a lot of his other synastries, lasting and not lasting.

this set-up to me points to the basic fact that we are all aligned to certain frequencies and it's easiest to pick up on another's channel if you will if theirs is aligned with ours. it doesnt mean its good or bad its just magnetic.

and the bit about fleshing out the skeleton with the rest is a v.good analogy

edit - also wanted to add that in the above mentioned synastry with the criteria given by DD the -only- connections are her nn/sn intermingling with his axis, nothing from her sun moon asc, or axis rulers, and that gives them 10 connections.

posted September 21, 2009 04:21 PM            

thank you for sharing this experience. Yes, that is exactly what I mean. You really can see this way that some planets might be more important than others or even an axis.
Like noone would really take much notice of Mercury or Jupiter aspects in term of romantic synastry.
In my case there will ALWAYS be Mercury aspects. Always.
Mercury is my DESC (and SN) ruler; not only that usually mercury will also rule an angle for the other party.

"this set-up to me points to the basic fact that we are all aligned to certain frequencies and it's easiest to pick up on another's channel if you will if theirs is aligned with ours. it doesnt mean its good or bad its just magnetic."
That is EXACTLY what I mean.

posted September 21, 2009 05:29 PM            

Art is subjective, as is what we value in relationships. DESCRIBING what you see in a painting, even if it was not subjective (and it is), would not require any value judgment. Of course you could give your OPINION of the painting's value, whether it does or does not seem "significant" or like "great art" to you...but your opinion on its significance would not be part of a description of what is actually there.

The description of the painting might include the images it seems to portray, the colors and materials used,

Describing a painting is different from deeming it meaningful or meaningless--and also, much richer and more valuable intellectual and aesthetically.

Similarly, describing the dynamics, connections, and energies you see in a chart is much richer and more valuable intellectually and psychologically than making the determination--"this entire relationship is significant because there are are tight-orbed conjunctions" or "despite the fact that the querent is intrigued enough by the relationship to throw a chart, this relationship is NOT significant." Of course some relationships feel important to us and others don't--we can explore the synastry of those that intrigue and interest us.

Much, MUCH more interesting--and, I think, true--would be to look at the synastry and ask questions like, "Ohh, how does A's Pluto interact with B's chart and vice versa, and how does that connect to their natals and current transits? How important is Plutonian energy in this relationship and how/where does each person feel it?"

In order to do a meaninful and constructive synastry reading that people can actually use, sorting real human relationships into the categories "significant" and "insignificant" is unneccessary, as is checklisting points to "rate" how close the relationship is.

posted September 21, 2009 05:40 PM            

I have a composite with someone and it reminds me of my chart (and his)a lot. I think that's important. It doesn't mean it will work, but it means a lot.

Also, some astrologers look at certain aspects, like Pluto or uranus, and say: oh, this will never work. If the people are uranian or plutonian, it's the ONLY thing that will work, imo.

posted September 21, 2009 05:42 PM            

quote:

---

There may be plenty of astrological explanations for why the relationships do feel significant to me--but really, who cares about that part??

---

You both have good points. As I'm reading this, I can't help but see it as a discussion between Aqua (DD's Moon) and Leo (Lucia's Sun). Leo is subjective and cares about the experience of reality. Aqua is objective and cares about the structure of reality. Leo wants to know a feeling; Aqua wants to know an idea.

I don't think DD is saying - if one of the most important relationships in your life lacks this synastry, it's not truly an important relationship. (With "important" meaning the bond affects you strongly.) I think she's trying to find the astrological structure that accompanies those relationships. Whatever that structure is may be of no interest to someone who prioritizes experience, but some people are curious about the pattern which triggers such an experience.

If there are enough exceptions to this theory, then what should be modified is the theory not someone's perception of their own subjective experience.

posted September 21, 2009 05:56 PM            

Sick or not, you make perfect sense.

I especially liked this:
some astrologers look at certain aspects, like Pluto or uranus, and say: oh, this will never work. If the people are uranian or plutonian, it's the ONLY thing that will work, imo.

Way back, Todd looked at my comp with my SO. His analysis was spot on & illuminating. The only part that was off is that he interpreted a Uranus square as making an LTR extremely challenging, if not impossible. His interp would probably fit for people lacking hard Uranus aspects natally, but my SO and I have them. I have no doubt that its presence in the composite shows how our relationship accommodates that part of our personalities. We'd both jet from a relationship that didn't.

posted September 21, 2009 06:51 PM            

Here are two more for your comparisons:

paul mcCartney/Linda Eastman
his moon opp her IC
his AC cj her NN

posted September 21, 2009 06:57 PM            

I suppose that DD just wants to say that those synastry aspects can show strong potential (or the lack of it) between a couple, but not necessarily dooming. And then, I suppose that Lucia23 just wants to say that we shouldn't have a fatalistic approach, as we can't just brand relationships as significant or not just coz the charts seems to say so.

Actually, astrology should be consistent, but being consistent doesn't necessarily mean being deterministic when it comes to the significance of each relationship - astrology only shows the potentials that a relationship can have, but then it's us humans that determines if these potentials/relationships are significant or not.

posted September 21, 2009 07:11 PM            

DD,
thank you and for adding your experience with your chart and mercury, etc. i'm going to be looking at a lot of charts and will try to see if i notice anything more along same lines.

posted September 21, 2009 09:42 PM            

quote:

---

I don't think DD is saying - if one of the most important relationships in your life lacks this synastry, it's not truly an important relationship. (With "important" meaning the bond affects you strongly.) I think she's trying to find the astrological structure that accompanies those relationships. Whatever that structure is may be of no interest to someone who prioritizes experience, but some people are curious about the pattern which triggers such an experience.

---

Jane, I think you're oversimplifying my way of thinking about this, implying that my interest in personal experience means I don't look for broad patterns. I'm an 8th house Leo, and the 8th house part makes me a huge non-fan of crude, unneccessary dichotomies and ranking systems. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in systems and patterns, and in thoughtful, detailed, meaningful applications of astrological tools.

To me, my belief that asking: "What dynamics are evident in this chart? What do they show us about the relationship?" instead of "Is this significant?" or "Are we compatible?" or "Are we soul mates?" is not a prioritization of feeling/experience over objectivity...it's an attempt at a deeper and more meaninful and in fact, LESS subjective application of astrological tools and concepts.

If I didn't think there was value to the idea that astrological aspects and placements can have a consistent effect in different charts, I wouldn't find astrology useful at all. In fact, I do believe there are patterns--I believe that a Venus-Pluto conjunction in synastry, for example, usually plays out in a certain way in a chart, bringing a certain energy.

I actually think "Is this relationship significant, based on the synastry?" is a much, much MORE subjective, opinion-based question than, "Which astrological dynamics are evident in this synastry?"

It does not mean that I am only interested in my personal experience and not interested in exploring the possible applications of astrological generalizations--although I AM very skeptical about some applications--I just don't like the whole value judgment. I find THAT quite unobjective.

It's weird, I keep thinking I've articulated this, and I read over my posts and they seem clear to me, but I feel like people aren't getting what I'm trying to say. Merc Retro?

quote:

---

I think she's trying to find the astrological structure that accompanies those relationships.

---

posted September 21, 2009 10:18 PM            

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was oversimplifying your view. After reading just one of your posts, I could tell you're a clear, deep thinker. I'm not at all attaching a value judgment to subjective and objective, or saying that one way of being is more capable of logical thought or more perceptive of patterns. Because that's not true!

I meant subjective and objective in their philosophical sense.

Subjective = My important relationship feels like this to me. / Their important relationship feels like this to them.
~focus is on the experience; analysis/pattern identification is of the experience
~asks - How do the individuals experience this significant relationship, what's it about to them?

Objective = The important relationship is this.
~focus is on the identity; analysis is of the identity
~asks - What is a significant relationship?

DD is studying an object. She's saying that something exists - an important relationship - and offering her ideas on what it is. So when I say she's objective, I don't mean that she's a more objective thinker (i.e., logical, detached, etc.), I mean that she's looking at an object and describing its identity. Subjective is describing how the subjects are experiencing an object (the relationship).

posted September 21, 2009 10:41 PM            

The thing is that Astrology is a highly controversial subject in the first place. So many things in Astrology are questionable that it's not even funny. Many things in Astrology are questionable. There is just as much subjectivity as objectivity in Astrology.

I question a lot of things in Astrology. Many people in this forum know how I feel about tropical zodiac sign placements. I don't put much emphasis on them, and I believe that the constellation placement factors into the sign placement like my Sun is in Scorpio,but it's in the Virgo constellation. So the Virgo star themes also factor into how my Sun in Scorpio is expressed. I have serious doubts about using the tropical zodiac (northern hemisphere-based season zodiac) for people born in the southern hemisphere.

You know how I feel about Pluto's influence and my suggesting that its fellow transneptunian objects are just powerful as Pluto and some even more powerful.....especially Sedna. Of course, I have expressed my opinion that mainstream Astrology is outdated with the discovery of the centaurs and transneptunians as well as other objects as well as the use of Right Ascension and Declination by Astronomers who don't use ecliptic longitude like we do. These are things that skeptics point out to invalidate Astrology too.

so any ways...I can see how Lucia and DD can have strong disagreements about how core synastry aspects.

I was born the same day as Winona Ryder.
Just because Winona Ryder was attracted to certain guys like Johnny Depp doesn't mean that I'd dig them.
Alyssa Milano was born on the same day as a longtime school friend of mine. I thought Alyssa Milano was ALL THAT, but I didn't feel the same way about my school friend.

I don't believe that there is anything wrong with deterministic Astrology. Look at Vedic Astrology. Vedic Astrologers match people with their charts ...especially with the kuta system. I think that it really depends on one's culture and what an astrologer believes.

I do believe in psychological,humanistic astrology which acknowledges that free will is the ultimate factor, but I also believe in event-oriented Astrology. That's why I have interest in Cosmobiology which is a event-oriented type of astrological system that doesn't even the houses. In some ways,it's even more scientific than mainstream Astrology. I also believe in Evolutionary,Karmic type of Astrology, and so I believe that Astrological placements,aspects can show karmic,evolutionary lessons,experiences too.

any ways. I wonder if this is thread that people might need to agree to disagree on. A positive use of Eristic energy.

heck...I even believe that Eris could tell Uranus to move over as ruler of Astrology too because Astrology is so controversial and debated with so many disagreements among the astrological community that it's no wonder that astrological skeptics point that out as proof that Astrology is B.S.

Raymond

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted September 21, 2009 11:10 PM            

on September 20, 2009
at 9:10 AM EST
I put New York,NY not sure of the place...it's in the Eastern Time zone

Eris in 21'42 Aries R
oppose Moon in 21'01 Libra
oppose Ceres in 20'13 Libra
semisextile Sedna in 21'53 Taurus R

In Right Ascension (Equatorial Latitude Coordinates that astronomers use)

Eris in 25'12 Aries
oppose/conjunct Ascendant/Descendant in 24'14 Libra/Aries
sextile Neptune in 26'40 Aquarius

Moon in 17'28 Libra
square Mars in 17'11 Cancer

That makes sense...the emotional,subjective emphasis on relationships which can be controversial and stir up debate and can even lead to arguments. This turning out to be a highly dialectical thread imho.

Raymond

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted September 21, 2009 11:27 PM            

quote:

---

I mean that she's looking at an object and describing its identity.

---

I don't see how "significant"/"not significant" is a description of the identity of a relationship. It seems like just a value judgement, to me.

Imagining for a moment that I agree it's an "objective" distinction in the way you're describing (and I don't), I disagree with the categorization.

Here is how I would describe/categorize relationships as "significant" or not, if I thought it was useful to do so.

SIGNIFICANT CONNECTIONS:
-relationships between people who live together for years, such as parents and children
-almost all parent-child relationships, period
-relationships between romantic partners
-relationships between creative collaborators
-relationships between two people who--however brief or long-term their encounter(s)--have a huge, butterfly-effect or domino-effect, impact on shaping each other's lives
-friendships

The level of influence each of these relationships has could be heirarchically rated, but I would say they're all "significant."

INSIGNIFICANT CONNECTIONS:
Note: one-sided relationships are significant to one person, but not the other...if I thought it was at all valuable to categorize relationships into "significant" and "insignificant" ones, I would categorize these as "insignificant" relationships (because AS RELATIONSHIPS, they are insignificant...the obsessed-about person doesn't function as a partner in the relationship, but rather as a symbol or projection, like a book or TV show):

-relationships between groupies and celebrities who they are not involved with in real life
-relationships between strangers who have never met each other, but some astrologer is checking out their synastry for some reason

posted September 21, 2009 11:51 PM            

quote:

---

I am certainly not fighting about a label or name as "significant".
I guess what I really mean is that some people are affecting each other more strongly than others.

---

She's not using "significant" as a value judgment, but as a definition: a relationship that strongly affects the individuals. She's saying those relationships exist & is describing how she believes they're represented astrologically.

And this is where I'm more sympathetic to the subjective side - does that pattern really matter? I just want to feel it in action. I am curious, very curious, but I don't feel compelled to crack the code, like I would if I were more objective. I'm more interested in studying the particular nature of my relationships. Whatever pattern - if one even exists - that makes people feel strongly affected by another is taken for granted when it's there, and my focus moves onto the particular dynamic.

posted September 22, 2009 12:24 AM            

I think my dad and I are both effecting each other more strongly than many people I have lots of -3 degree conjunctions with. As just one example.

If we had astrological tools where it was possible to look at the charts of two people who were strangers to us and determine--just from the charts alone--that they were a mother and son (as one example), my arguments might be different.

As it is, what we CAN determine with a fair amount of accuracy is how aspects/placements that have been observed for centuries will likely play out in a chart--and we can look at those things all together in each unique synastry and DESCRIBE the dynamics of that relationship with relative accuracy and objectivity (in the sense that you use the word.)

In my list of relationships I think are significant versus insignificant, I was also using that term to mean "affecting each other more strongly than others."

My dad effects me more strongly than some random guy from another country who I've never met who has become my fan, and who I see once at a performance. (As just one of many, many examples.) Seriously! It's just that our charts do not show in any reliable, generalizable way that's we're a father/daughter....which is a big part of why the relationship is significant/stronly affects us as individuals.

quote:

---

She's not using "significant" as a value judgment, but as a definition: a relationship that strongly affects the individuals.

---

I am using the SAME definition.

posted September 22, 2009 12:30 AM            

I was stunned that I had the synastry she described with all of my VIPs. So I think there's definitely something to her theory, but it may need some tweaking.

And there may turn out to be no universal pattern, but the astro "objectivists" can do all the work to discover that for the rest of us.

I am using the SAME definition.

posted September 22, 2009 12:36 AM            

quote:

---

And this is where I'm more sympathetic to the subjective side - does that pattern really matter?

---

I think it would be very interesting, actually! I don't think anybody has found it yet.

posted September 22, 2009 12:42 AM            

But I've seen several friendship synastries (including some of mine), romantic synastries, and parent/child synastries that don't.

posted September 22, 2009 12:48 AM            

quote:

---

But something that fascinates me about a universal pattern is locating that common humanity. How similar are we all, really?

---

And see, in my experience , astrology often accurately predicts where we are similar and different.

Some of my most "significant" relationships have been short-lived intensely passionate flings that had a major ripple effect on my life...and several of my most significant relationships have been creative collaborations where that was way more important than (or indistinguishable from) our personal relationship...and I bet that is true for another Hades Moon 8th house Leos with Sun sextile Uranus and a tight Mercury-MC quintile.

But I am skeptical about the whole thing, too.

posted September 22, 2009 12:51 AM            

I don't think it's a false positive, so to speak. Just me having too stringent a standard for a significant relationship.

But I get what you mean about how divorcing a standard from the reality of the experience can create false positives.

Also, I think if you're coming across many exceptions, then DD could expand her criteria, or create several standards: long-lasting relationships, short but significant, etc.

posted September 22, 2009 12:59 AM            

quote:

---

To see if you have a significant connection to someone else (no matter if romantic or otherwise), THERE HAVE TO BE...

---

My emphasis. And that's the part that I don't find accurate when you toss in the "no matter if romantic or otherwise"...