Lindaland
  Interpersonal Astrology
  My take on core synastric aspects and asteroids (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 4 pages long:   1  2  3  4 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   My take on core synastric aspects and asteroids
DD
Knowflake

Posts: 7072
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 20, 2009 09:10 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for DD     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
To see if you have a significant connection to someone else (no matter if romantic or otherwise), there have to be

conjunctions / oppositions within 3 degree between

Sun, Moon, NN, the angles and ruler of the angles.


If there are no conjunctions / oppositions between those, I think, that the core personalities are not really in contact with each other (you still could have a relationship, but it probably would be one, where every person is doing their "own thing").

IF you have those connections however, THEN the other planets and asteroids come into play and will tell the story of the interaction.
Is this a romantic one? Passionate? purely physical? mental? family-like?

IP: Logged

PeaceAngel
Knowflake

Posts: 4313
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 20, 2009 09:16 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for PeaceAngel     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I've been thinking about this recently and I agree with you here. I think that the conjunctions show us where we are alike and the oppositions show our differences and what we lack but the other has and how we balance each other.

Intersting topic DD. I do think without those links that the synastry is weak.

IP: Logged

DD
Knowflake

Posts: 7072
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 20, 2009 09:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for DD     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes, that is what I mean. Without these we have weak synastry.

I know that this won`t sit right with many people, but I am really convinced of this.
And so far I have found it in all the so-called soulmate relationships.

And let`s be honest, those are a lot of planets to look at, so we have good chances there.

After all we look at:

Sun
Moon
NN
ASC-DSC
MC-IC
ruler of ASC
ruler of DESC
ruler of MC
ruler of IC

And if there are no contacts despite the good chances to have some, then this is telling, too.

IP: Logged

DD
Knowflake

Posts: 7072
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 20, 2009 09:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for DD     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Examples:

Brad Pitt - Angelina Jolie

DESC conjunct Sun
ASCruler conjunct Moon
ASCruler conjunct MC ruler


Antonio Banderas - Melanie Griffith

DESCruler conjunct IC
Sun conjunct Sun
Sun conjunct IC-ruler
NN conjunct ASC-ruler

Paul Newmann - Joanne Woodward

ASC conjunct ASC
ICruler conjunct ASC
ICruler conjunct ASC-ruler
MCruler conjunct DESC


To just name 3.

IP: Logged

Unmoved
Knowflake

Posts: 2196
From:
Registered: May 2009

posted September 20, 2009 09:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Unmoved     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Good topic DD

As I tinker around with synastry and asteroids as well, I have come to consider conjunctions more important than trines and sextiles. I am now going to look at oppositions too.

Do you have any thoughts on the Vertex?

Thanks DD.

IP: Logged

DD
Knowflake

Posts: 7072
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 20, 2009 09:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for DD     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think Vertex might relate to significant encounters, which could lead to a profound transformation or even be lifechanging, IF you allow it to be.

But I also think that it is not a guarantee that you will stay together forever. Sometimes you just need a catalyst for a certain transformation, and after you started the process, the catalyst (the other person) will have moved on, if there are no other sustaining factors.

EDIT:
The meaning of Vertex in different areas seems to indicate that it is a point where two "entities" or particles (in physics) collide and interact, which might lead to a turning (Vertex means "turning point", too)

IP: Logged

Glaucus
Knowflake

Posts: 5819
From: Sacramento,California
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 20, 2009 11:10 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Glaucus     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

DD,

I agree with everything that you said.


Raymond

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

- Eckhart Tolle

IP: Logged

DD
Knowflake

Posts: 7072
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 20, 2009 11:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for DD     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Glaucus,

IP: Logged

pire
Knowflake

Posts: 2323
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 20, 2009 12:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pire     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
very interesting DD.

i've got a bunch of south node contact in synastry; are they less relevant? what do you think?

Thanks

edit: i realise how stupid my question was since we consider oppossitions too,

a NN opposition is a SN conjunction

oups

IP: Logged

Lucia23
Knowflake

Posts: 2395
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 20, 2009 12:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lucia23     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
DD, setting aside the "soul mate" relationship idea for the moment, and just talking abour ROMANTIC relationships where the couple is in a mutual, one-on-one relationship in real life, in this life, and each party would say, "I love that person. S/he is my partner"---

-don't you also find strong core synastry often between strangers and/or between celebrities and groupies?

It seems like, just statistically, that would inevitably happen.

It also seems like there are many, many, MANY relationships between people who do know each other where the synastry looks very strong, but they never hook up, and/or they have short and unsatisfying relationships.

That said--in the synastries of long-term couples who never split up that I've looked at, they do have the strong, tight-orb core aspects you've described. But I think a lot of other relationships have those, too, including the relationships of people with train-wreck situations who post on astrology web sites. ANNNDD I think there's a lot to be said for the shorter-term, interesting, potentially powerful contacts some of us will have with people we don't end up spending 30 years married to--in fact, for artists, sometimes other kinds of (more explosive, less stable, more MC-oriented) bonds can be as or more important than one solid partnership.

And--what if you feel an intense connection with someone and WANT a long term relationship with them, but you don't have strong core synastry, or, you have incredibly strong core conjunctions between planets and angles, all of which are at a 4 to 8 degree orb?

I think there are real dangers to this level of determinism--I prefer the idea of using synastry as a metaphorical tool to work with real-life relationships, over using it to put relationships into two "categories" (ones with "good" synastry versus "bad.")

There are nuggets of truth to ALL deterministic thinking--racist and sexist ideas stem from some observable rules. But to celebrate how beautiful and unique humans and our relationships are, I think we have to fight determinism.

A lot of people turn to astrology wanting answers--"Are we compatible?" I, personally, would love for an oracle to tell me what I want to hear, but then also for it to be true. People LOVE categories and labels.

But what is the most constructive application of synastry? What do we use it for, and why?

I do think it can be misleading.

IP: Logged

Lucia23
Knowflake

Posts: 2395
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 20, 2009 01:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lucia23     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Also--the idea of a "significant connection."

I've seen a LOT of synastries where there's a significant connection (within families, etc) without the core connections you're describing. But I don't need to come on to Lindaland to ask is I have a core connection with my mom, even if our synastry is weak and wide-orbed...no one does that! With non-romantic synastry, I see people using astrological tools in a constructive way--"Here's what's going on in life, here's how I feel, how can I work with that?"

I think what people are REALLY coming onto here to find out is:
a) whether what they feel is mutual and
b) if it IS mutual, is it "real"/strong/stable enough to "lead somewhere" so they don't waste time exploring their feelings unless the relationship will fit into a particular mold

I'm not sure that "significant connection" can be trotted out as a fixed category (especially when I see people applying to one-sided fixations on media figures they've never even met)....I think there are different definitions of "significant", and that each connection between any two human beings is unique and we can see it as significant if we want to--just as we can choose to see the beauty in people.

IP: Logged

DD
Knowflake

Posts: 7072
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 20, 2009 01:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for DD     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Lucia,

I don`t think my approach is particularly deterministic. WEll astrology IS Deterministic per definition.
If it really reflects life on earth that is.

And if you had read closely you would have seen, that these core aspects are just a filter, and after that you can apply these other planets / asteroids to know the story of an interaction.

But what use is it to apply all these asteroids (and I love those!) and other astrological techniques, if the basis is weak?


Of course it is all about potential, nothing more.
Having those core aspects, doesn´t mean you WILL end up together. There are no guarantees.

BTW even between children and their parents it can happen that they "don`t get" each other.


For one sided attractions I have often found that one person had strong synastric aspects from the other one`s Sun, Moon, Venus, Mars, ASC or chartruler to their ruler of 5th, (7th) or 8th house, while the other person didn`t have such aspects.

Those synastries of people you never meet, well, I think this synastry would play out, IF they met, in what way ever.
In the case of celebrities of course it is onesided. Only the one who is aware of the celebrity would feel the synastric aspects, unless both people meet.


Having said that, timing is important. I definitely would look at the progressed aspects for this. They seem to be more reliable than natal synastry.

Oh one more thing:
IMO astrology should NEVER be used to decide if I invest emotion into a relationship or not. It should be used to understand the people involved and their dynamic.


EDIT:
Maybe a relationship or just a connection has to be "born", which happens when people become aware of each other.
If only one person has this awareness, it will be only them who feels whatever is there to feel.


Also, even if there is attraction, each person can still decide, to NOT act upon it.

IP: Logged

DD
Knowflake

Posts: 7072
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 20, 2009 02:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for DD     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Pire,

I definitely think SN is as relevant as NN.

IP: Logged

comica23
Knowflake

Posts: 1212
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 20, 2009 05:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for comica23     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Synastry is a static chart showing the potential compatibility between two people - but in the real life, time isn't static, and we aren't static, so that the potentials wouldn't all just manifest statically and at the same time. But well, for that we have stuffs like transits and progressions to tell how and when potentials are probably going to manifest.

For some reasons (whether meaningful or just random), we just end up meeting certain people. But thought astrology might not be able to show it or it's we humans that still lack of skills to determine who really knows who and who's blood-related with who in the real life, it doesn't mean that astrology is totally invalid - science still can't figure everything out about this world, but it doesn't mean that everything else of science is then false, right?
Astrology is a system that is still being perfectioned, and we can't just deny its validity just coz it isn't totally accurate.

Well, whether astrology can be used to determine everything or not, we currently just don't have enough knowledge and wisdom to be able to read everything 100% accurate anyways. So what would you do, when you know this? Personally, I'd use it to help myself looking at the situations clearer. But well, astrology can work as a scheme of the situation, but it's still up to us to figure the solutions out.


Now back to "tight degrees vs less tight degrees". Well, of course that a synastry with lots of nice connections of less tight degrees can still work - after all, of course that relationships with lots of good but less intense compatibilities can work too. But well, intensity or the lack of it doesn't necessarily grant or doom happy endings. Yet tight aspects will always be more intense and loose aspects will always be less intense (for better or worse).

IP: Logged

DD
Knowflake

Posts: 7072
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 20, 2009 05:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for DD     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Comica,

"Well, whether astrology can be used to determine everything or not, we currently just don't have enough knowledge and wisdom to be able to read everything 100% accurate anyways"
Just what I have been thinking, too.

"Yet tight aspects will always be more intense and loose aspects will always be less intense (for better or worse)."
Definitely.


I once read an article, in which the author addressed the problem of tight vs loose orbs.

"The solution I present here is simple: from the synastric perspective, tighter orbs in the individual natal chart are "stronger" because, given a 'tight link', it is less likely that one's social network will include someone whose chart forms an even tighter link, and thus 'interferes with' or modifies the behaviours (actions, thoughts, feelings) otherwise shown by that natal aspect. In other words, the tighter the orb, the less likely it is that synastry will invalidate astrological delineations based on the individual natal chart alone. For example, suppose one has the configuration Moon Square Pluto with an orb of one degree. Within an active social network that includes five close friends or associates, the probability that at least one of those friends will form a closer fourth harmonic link (Conjunction, Square or Opposition) than this natal configuration is some 43%. The one degree link is therefore reasonably likely to remain 'intact'; apparently, a truly "individual" attribute. However, once the orb is increased to two degrees, the probability of a closer link to a friend's chart increases to some 67%, meaning it is now quite likely that a new or emergent behaviour with that friend will override the 'individual' configuration.

Put another way, the tighter the orbs used in delineating a natal chart, the more often the delineation will be true. The wider the orbs, the less often the delineation will be true, because it is more likely that the client will develop significant social patterns of behaviour with other people in their regular social network that override or modify the individual potential. In this perspective, the words "stronger" and "weaker" are actually ways of expressing our experience of what is 'more often true' and 'less often true' when we read charts for individual clients in isolation from their social context.

This perspective also casts light on two other points. It explains the very wide orbs that some astrologers use. They are used because occasionally they do in fact work. They will work because the clients in these cases have developed within a social network where no overriding synastric link has occurred. In the example I gave previously, a natal Moon Square Pluto will occasionally mean what that configuration is expected to mean even if the orb is 20 degrees, if the person involved has no relationships within which a closer Moon link occurs. It also explains the modern tendency to adopt tighter orbs than appear to have been used in previous centuries. This is happening because population density and mobility have increased to unprecedented levels compared to previous centuries, enormously reducing the chances for individual natal potentials to remain intact, and raising levels of purely social behaviour.

My final point concerns a crucial distinction between tight-link and loose-link configurations (including "unaspected" planets) in the natal chart. Dale Huckeby (personal communication, 13 March, 2000) has made the tentative observation that the charts of famous people tend to show "a kind of looseness". In contrast, "it's almost as [if] too 'powerful' a chart (in conventional terms) makes Jack a dull boy, or at least not a standout". It is now possible to understand this observation. Tight links and configurations within the natal chart are essentially more impervious to social networks. People with a predominantly tightly linked chart are more self-contained, less influenced by others, less changeable, and more likely to be successful subjects for individualistic natal chart readings. People with predominantly loose charts however are much more likely to develop a range of behaviours that alter significantly according to social context, that is, according to who they are interacting with at any given time.

Of course, these are general characterizations. Almost every chart contains a mixture of tight and loose links. The lesson is that in most social networks our tight links indicate our individually persistent behaviours; whereas our loose links indicate where our capacities for relationship and change are greatest and where we act, think, and feel significantly differently from person to person and from situation to situation."
http://www.aplaceinspace.net/Pages/AndreSocialAstrology.html

I thought it was an interesting article, even though I haven`t yet formed an own opinion on that.


But in some way it makes sense, also in terms of synastry.

If you have very exact synastric links with someone (say within 1 degree), the chances are less high that you might meet someone who shares the same or even tighter aspects with you, which makes this a very individual synastric aspect, only possible with a few people, but not with half the world.

And personally I believe these most individual aspects (no matter if in synastry or in natal) will be a focus in a natal or a synastry. They kind of "characterize" the interconnection or expression more than aspects would do, that you share with many more people, too.

IP: Logged

katatonic
unregistered
posted September 20, 2009 05:40 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
DD i agree with almost everything here, especially when this is taken into account:

"IMO astrology should NEVER be used to decide if I invest emotion into a relationship or not. It should be used to understand the people involved and their dynamic."

however i wonder what you think of those "odd" couples who have natal squares (so they have had a lot of square energy in their own lives) and synastric squares too?

they often seem to BALANCE each other's charts in an amazing way. i think blue moon mentioned her husband and she both have t-squares that put together make a grand square...and they have apparently been together half of forever.

keith richards' wife's sun fills out his t-square and squares his sun and saturn. they do have some very nice venus/node contacts and i don't know about chart rulers because i don't know her birthtime...also significant in their case they have conjunct jupiters, and though his chart ruler is pluto, his sun is sag (right on yours bytheway). i think these two qualify after 30 years together, 23 of them married.

so i guess i'm trying to say that your "requirements" definitely work but that maybe squares, especially in patterns like this, should be added to the formula?

IP: Logged

Glaucus
Knowflake

Posts: 5819
From: Sacramento,California
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 20, 2009 05:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Glaucus     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I wonder what's the orbs of the aspects in those grand crosses.


of course, challenging aspect configurations can be a lot of friction that can be very energizing.

many relationships seem to take a lot of work and also involving strong major karmic issues to work out with each other.


some relationships aren't meant to last either

my mother and father weren't even together for 2 years. My father disappeared without a trace,and so I never knew him.
The way I see it, the only reason that they got together was to bring me into the world.

my mother's parents weren't even together for a year. my mom's mother disappeared without a trace,and so my mom never knew her.
I also believe that the purpose of them getting together is to bring my mom into the world.

my grandfather was married to his second wife for 40 years until his suicide,and he had 4 children with her.

Raymond

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

- Eckhart Tolle

IP: Logged

DD
Knowflake

Posts: 7072
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 20, 2009 05:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for DD     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes, Katatonic, I thought about squares, too. They seem to add an element of attraction; sparks and energy.
Of course filling someone`s "gaps" should be taken into account, too.

Yet, I think even in most of these cases, there will be at least one conjunction or opposition like I suggested.


Also, let`s not forget about the importance of natal charts. Those determine probably more than synastry alone, what we feel attracted to.

Yet I think Sun, Moon, ASC are so prominent in our core personality, that an aspect between those would create a potential bond, cause there is "common ground", a familiarity (as in the case with the conjunction) or that feeling that the other one has something that I am lacking and so we balance each other out (opposition).

The square could add the sizzling factor here, provide enough energy to want to do something about the things you feel, start a relationship.
But the square is generally not a sign of compatibility; there will be differences in terms of personality, and it depends on the people involved how they can handle them.
People with tensed natal charts will probably get a thrill out of squares, while people with more serene and calm natal charts might be startled by all these ugly differences and disagreements.

Ask Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher - theirs is a true square-relationship.
BUT both have really intense natal charts to begin with.
He has that Stellium of Sun, Moon and Venus in Aquarius, which opposese Saturn and squares Uranus.
She has Sun conjunct Venus in Scorpio opposing Moon in Taurus and squaring Mars in Leo (widely) and his Aquarius planets fill the missing gap of this Grand Cross.

I actually think whenever one person completes such a "circuit" in our charts, we might feel like we have met someone, we need to feel complete.

What I suggested here, were basic requirements, but astrology doesn`t end there.

IP: Logged

Lucia23
Knowflake

Posts: 2395
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 20, 2009 08:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lucia23     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
To see if you have a significant connection to someone else (no matter if romantic or otherwise)...

DD, this is the part that seems unneccesarily deterministic to me. It's a yes/no thing.

quote:
IMO astrology should NEVER be used to decide if I invest emotion into a relationship or not. It should be used to understand the people involved and their dynamic.

If this is true (and I believe this also), then the kind of deterministic question "is this a SIGNIFICANT connection or not" is unneccessary and irrelevent. If we start from the premise that each connection between two people is unique, just like each person is unique and each moment is unique, then we can look at ANY synastry and see the dynamics involved.

A better question then would be, "What dynamics and energies between these two people are shown in this synastry?"

I don't see why it should be labelled "significant" or not. And I think the idea of rating its significance is where it becomes unfortunately fatalistic or fantasy based--that's not AT ALL "using it to understand the people involved and their dynamic"--it is very explicitly deciding how important (or not) the relationship is. It's rating and categorizing the relationship. That is very seductive to people--hence the tireless lists of their aspects with orbs, whatever the actual dynamics of the relationship--but instead of addressing the fruitful, constructive question "What are some potential dynamics of this interaction?" it addesses the deterministic, fantasy-question, "Is this connection special?" or "Are we compatible?" or "Is this SIGNIFICANT, or not?"

The relative significance is a value-judgement, not an exploration of dynamics.

That's the opposite of looking at a unique connection and understanding how to work with its complex dynamics.


IP: Logged

jane
Knowflake

Posts: 1277
From:
Registered: Jul 2009

posted September 20, 2009 09:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jane     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have the synastry you described with...
~all of my immediate family
~my SO and all of my exes
~all my closest friends


IP: Logged

PeaceAngel
Knowflake

Posts: 4313
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 20, 2009 09:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for PeaceAngel     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Interesting conversation. The way I see it is that there are people who use the charts to see what is there - pure interpretation of what is actually before them - and there are people who swap and change charts until they get the outcome they desire.

IP: Logged

Lara
Newflake

Posts: 0
From:
Registered: Dec 2011

posted September 20, 2009 09:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lara     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I TOTALLY AGREE DD.

Thanks for this great thread!!

I have with this guy that we were chatting on the other thread about:
(and i'm sorry but i'm still not back to my computer yet )

sun cj moon (4)
sun cj NN (0)
sun opp IC ruler (5)
NN opp mars (3)
AC ruler cj NN (2)
IC ruler cj NN (0)
IC cj AC (1)


EDIT:
VERTEX opp MOON (1)
VERTEX opp NN (2)
VERTEX cj IC (2)

IP: Logged

LanaofAugust
Knowflake

Posts: 210
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 21, 2009 03:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for LanaofAugust     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Lucia23, my thoughts exactly.

IP: Logged

comica23
Knowflake

Posts: 1212
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 21, 2009 01:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for comica23     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Astrology is actually supposed to be consistent, coz it wouldn't be relevant if it doesn't have some validity.

Also, some relationships will always be more special than others, no matter how unique each of them is. We all do have preferences, and there's nothing wrong with it.

But well, the problem is, astrology simply shows where two people are compatible or not, yet these compatibilities (or lack of) doesn't manifest all statically and at the same time - it's dynamic through the time, and it depends on the outside factors, so that's why they are potentials.
So instead of "is this relationship significant or not", maybe it's more true to ask "if this relationship has good potential or not".

IP: Logged

DD
Knowflake

Posts: 7072
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 21, 2009 01:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for DD     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree with Comica and PA here,

astrology HAS to be consistent, if it has any validity at all.

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.
Of course also these people who don`t affect each other, don`t trigger strong reactions in each other, can have long relationships; just I noticed that in our age this isn`t very likely (but it depends on the individual), as usually people today look for other people they are affected by and actively affect, people who can relate, so a relationship becomes more likely (not guaranteed, of course not).

Astrology is descriptive and deterministic in the same way, as the description of a painting is.
If you describe a painting, you will describe what you see and what is there, not what you wished was there or sense could be there.
And that is what astrology does, describing, nothing more, nothing less.

There are people who relate to each other more intensely than others, and I believe it shows through tight aspects between factors, that describe our core personality.

Wether you like that and want that in a relationship, that is up to you, of course.
But my experience shows that most people really look for other people, they can share most of their personality and lives with (that doesn`t mean that the people are the same, just that they get each other and relate).

I also agree with Comica that this is dynamic.
Our birth chart shows the potential, it never changes throughout our lives. And yes, some things will remain in our personality (maybe just being expressed on a different way), yet others change.
Or some traits will be more in the centre than others at certain times, which of course influences our outward expression, appearence, and relationships, too.

I believe that this is where the progressions come into play, and they definitely have to be checked, too.


EDIT:
Oh and of course you shouldn´t stop by counting conjunctions to the ASC (for example). Interpretation is much more. It tells the story of a person or relationship. But you have to start somewhere.


IP: Logged


This topic is 4 pages long:   1  2  3  4 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright 2000-2014

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a