T-Square Interpretation

Conventional, late-20th-century astrological wisdom (at least as I learned it in the early '70s) held that the T-square aspect pattern is something like a "drawn bow," with the apex planet a kind of arrow aimed at the empty leg of the configuration. It was supposed that the energy of the complex will manifest in the empty house when the apex planet is activated by transits or directions, as a "release" or "discharge" of the tension inherent in the T-Square. Recently, more traditional-minded writers have observed that nothing overt will happen by transit or direction in a house not actually containing the planets involved (and, it should be added, where the Lord of the house is also not involved). Therefore, the house containing the activated apex planet should be looked to for any observable effects. Personally I've never seen the "drawn bow" scenario work to my satisfaction, so I've been leaning toward the latter model. Any thoughts or opinions on this?

ETA: My question caused some confusion on one of the astrological forums, so I rephrased it as follows: I'm asking a philosophical question about general principles, not a specific question about a particular chart interpretation. As a general rule, do you follow the practice of treating the empty leg of a T-square pattern as the location (i.e. the affairs represented by that house) for expression of the pattern's "stored energy" (for lack of a better term), such as when a transiting planet passes over the point opposite the apex planet? I've been at this for four decades now and have never seen that work very well.

Traditionalist Kevin Burk makes brief mention of this on page 279 of his book, "A Comprehensive Guide to Classical Interpretation," as follows: "Some astrologers consider this point (the point opposite the apex planet) to be the 'release point' of the T-square." He, on the other hand, believes the house containing the apex (or "focus") planet, and secondarily the house locations of the other two planets in the pattern, to be the active zones for expression of the energy. He sees awareness of the point opposite the apex as "an anchor of sorts, and a reference point to ensure that the path and direction of the action taken is true."

Unfortunately, without a fair amount of digging into my library, I can't say for sure who "some astrologers" are, but I remember it being part of the standard curriculum when I was first learning.
__________________

Edited to delete, not much point really now was there

Barleywine said:

Conventional, late-20th-century astrological wisdom (at least as I learned it in the early '70s) held that the T-square aspect pattern is something like a "drawn bow," with the apex planet a kind of arrow aimed at the empty leg of the configuration. It was supposed that the energy of the complex will manifest in the empty house when the apex planet is activated by transits or directions, as a "release" or "discharge" of the tension inherent in the T-Square. Recently, more traditional-minded writers have observed that nothing overt will happen by transit or direction in a house not actually containing the planets involved (and, it should be added, where the Lord of the house is also not involved). Therefore, the house containing the activated apex planet should be looked to for any observable effects. Personally I've never seen the "drawn bow" scenario work to my satisfaction, so I've been leaning toward the latter model. Any thoughts or opinions on this?

Click to expand...

Hi Barleywine,
I have done research into the T-square from the viewpoint of planetary patterns and specific areas that fit the description of being important because they did not contain actual physical planets, but this is only from a natal chart point of view. Looking at a chart from a planetary pattern point of view, the empty spaces in a chart are also important. For instance, in the Locomotive Pattern the area between the Cutting Planet and Trailing planet is important because the Cutting Planet cuts into the void, giving that pattern its dynamic.
My book, "Planetary Patterns and High Focus Planets in Spherical Astrology" has many references to the T-Square and Apex planet, and one can look inside to search for the T-square keyword. The void's importance as being a point of thrust of a chart is part of my text:
"The thrust of the Locomotive Pattern is towards the sextile
midpoint of the unoccupied section. The thrust reveals
where the client’s ambitions can project him in search of
opportunity and involvement. The dynamic pushing power of
the Locomotive is partially caused by the dynamic imbalance
between the occupied and unoccupied sections of the chart,
with emphasis toward the sextile midpoint center of the unoccupied
section between the Cutting Planet and Trailing Planet."
Should I reconsider rewriting the preceding paragraph? Let's look at another pattern.
The Bowl pattern is an example of a cup half empty or half full. The question is how is the void filled? It is not filled according to pattern theory. Those empty areas are dynamic because of their inability to act with weight, so the other planets must compensate. Consider the Bucket Pattern: It is a Bowl Pattern with another planet in opposition to the midsection of the Bowl. If the Handle of the Bucket Pattern is removed it becomes a Bowl Pattern, but does it (that Bowl Pattern) desire to be a Bucket Pattern or any other pattern (if it could just throw a few extra planets here or there for the fun of it)? From what I have seen a body (planet or point) must have mass to have weight in a chart, while points have a different kind of significance. So what am I describing as a thrust? Placing significance on a non-existent body or area (point or planet) could be stretching the credibility of this astrological technique of emphasizing the void area of a chart since a great multitude of possible non-existent bodies could be created for aspect configurations. But is this logic applicable to the whole chart view of the planetary patterns as well?
Cartomancer (Lance Carter)

Barleywine said:

ETA: My question caused some confusion on one of the astrological forums, so I rephrased it as follows: I'm asking a philosophical question about general principles, not a specific question about a particular chart interpretation. As a general rule, do you follow the practice of treating the empty leg of a T-square pattern as the location (i.e. the affairs represented by that house) for expression of the pattern's "stored energy" (for lack of a better term), such as when a transiting planet passes over the point opposite the apex planet? I've been at this for four decades now and have never seen that work very well.

Click to expand...

I think the problem lies in the 'philosophy'. Your description of the late twentieth century model reflects my own experience as a learner. I started in the late 60's and never really felt happy with it, which is why it took me three goes to eventually get to grips with Astrology. All philosophies have an underlying set of axioms and a prototype weltanshaung, which the philosophy elaborates and provides a rationale and explanation.

The view that you alluded to has as one of it's fundamental axioms, that the purpose of Astrology is Character Analysis, and a second axiom, is that this is properly conducted through the application of modern psychological views, particularly Jungian views.

The houses therefore reflect the mind and need to be integrated in order to examine the whole person. Untenanted houses therefore cause a problem because how can they then be integrated?

Add to that a psychological interest in patterns and the way we react to patterns (the Rorschach test for example) and you end up with an approach that looks to use patterns to integrate the untenanted houses into the mind picture.

If you regard these axioms as being essential to Astrology, then you will indeed begin to look at extending those patterns into the untenanted houses. The T square shows a mental or psychological tension in the mind and the job of the psychologist/counsellor is to help the native find a resolution (or at least an accommodation) with the 'condition'. Oppositions have always been seen as important and indeed the contrast of opposite houses has always been a feature of horoscopic Astrology, so what better place to look for the 'resolution'/accommodation.

Is this philosophical approach correct? Well it's highly arguable. The axiom of character analysis is not the prime one, it was made so by Alan Leo. Previously, the key axiom was probably that Astrology existed to make predictions of concrete events in an objectively real world that was external to the native. Obviously it would not have been stated in that format but predicting what events would befall the native was the key thing. Her/his character was secondary and clearly could not be based on the ideas of a man who would not be born for a millenium or two.

So one of your issues is also, 'Does Jungian psychology provide the most superior form of psychological analysis and therefore is the only one suitable for Astrology'? Again that's arguable to say the least. There's debate about the value of the Jungian approach, within the academic ranks of psychologists. This can shift a bit over time, but I think the main view is against it. This does not disprove it by any means but it does open the way for alternatives, should someone wish to use them.

I see the philosophical approach that focuses on the events in the 'real world' as better fitting my own weltanschaung and general philosophical approach. I can't prove that this is objectively correct but I do expect others to realise that it's a valid alternative (as is the Jungian model). In my case I don't need to integrate untenanted houses. They are not parts of the mind but are real external places and people and as such they may or may not be consistent with each other and may even at times have nothing to do with the native's current life (though the may have had relevance or may have relevance in the future).

I see some integration of the chart coming through house rulers and in particular, those that are well dignified both in terms of their sign placement and in terms of their chart placement and condition at the time of birth (accidental dignity).

To me, too little attention is paid to the planets involved in a 'pattern' There is a focus on the pattern and the element or mode base of the signs. My experience (for what it's worth) is that planets matter far more than signs. The role of the sign is to help provides some gauge of the planets essential dignity, that is it's ability to be at it's best in realising its nature.

The latter point also raises the issue of the outer planets and indeed asteroids, dwarf planets and other bodies. Some of the claimed T squares I might not recognise because they use bodies that I do not consider important enough or relevant enough. So I might end up in a debate, not only about whether there is such a thing as a T square, but even if there is, whether it exists in a particular chart.

I'm coming to the conclusion that more and more Astrologers are turning away from the late twentieth century orthodoxy, many are turning to more traditional approaches, others are developing new approaches. But to those who remain steadfastly based in Jung, I can only acknowledge their right to be so. For them the T Square exists and has value. To me the aspects exist and have meaning through the planets involved.

Cartomancer said:

The void's importance as being a point of thrust of a chart is part of my text

Click to expand...

I like the idea of "thrust" in this context since it implies a "place to push off from," which seems to echo Kevin Burk's view. Tracy Marks considered the empty house to be a "hole" that needs filling in the life of the native. The temporary Grand Cross created by a transit or progression through that area would be one way to initiate the "filling." Two other, competing viewpoints are that a) an empty house reflects an area of the life that needs conscious attention since there is no natural propensity to act as there would be with planets present, or b) an empty house reflects an area of the life that needs no special attention since it is essentially a neutral zone and the impetus to take action lies elsewhere. But my recent explorations into traditional natal and horary astrology show that there is always something going on in an empty house, you just need to look at the placement and condition, via essential dignity and aspect, of the Lord (planet ruling the cusp) of that house.

Minderwiz said:

The view that you alluded to has as one of it's fundamental axioms, that the purpose of Astrology is Character Analysis, and a second axiom, is that this is properly conducted through the application of modern psychological views, particularly Jungian views. Is this philosophical approach correct? Well it's highly arguable. The axiom of character analysis is not the prime one, it was made so by Alan Leo.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, and Alan Leo was looking for a convincing way to extricate himself from persecution as a fortune-teller. The fall-out from that was the "psychological," as opposed to the "deterministic" (or, if you prefer, "predictive"), model that was built on the work of Dane Rudhyar, Marc Edmund Jones, and others of that era. It became the teaching paradigm for a generation (or maybe two) of modern astrologers. I, for one, was taught that the birth chart is a blueprint for the personality and a developmental road map for future growth. Now I'm back-peddling a bit from that approach and exploring traditional methods with great satisfaction.

Minderwiz said:

I see the philosophical approach that focuses on the events in the 'real world' as better fitting my own weltanschaung and general philosophical approach. In my case I don't need to integrate untenanted houses. They are not parts of the mind but are real external places and people and as such they may or may not be consistent with each other and may even at times have nothing to do with the native's current life (though they may have had relevance or may have relevance in the future).

Click to expand...

I presently come down somewhere in the middle on this, but am rapidly leaning your way. I think horary gets the credit (or maybe the blame ).

Minderwiz said:

I see some integration of the chart coming through house rulers and in particular, those that are well dignified both in terms of their sign placement and in terms of their chart placement and condition at the time of birth (accidental dignity).

Click to expand...

Agreed. The great epiphany for me was beginning to use house rulers much more aggressively to accomplish the integration.

Minderwiz said:

To me, too little attention is paid to the planets involved in a 'pattern' There is a focus on the pattern and the element or mode base of the signs. My experience (for what it's worth) is that planets matter far more than signs. The role of the sign is to help provides some gauge of the planets essential dignity, that is it's ability to be at it's best in realising its nature.

Click to expand...

I think this is why I was always less than enamored of Marc Edmund Jones' planetary patterns.

Minderwiz said:

The latter point also raises the issue of the outer planets and indeed asteroids, dwarf planets and other bodies. Some of the claimed T squares I might not recognise because they use bodies that I do not consider important enough or relevant enough. So I might end up in a debate, not only about whether there is such a thing as a T square, but even if there is, whether it exists in a particular chart.

Click to expand...

I decided long ago that asteroids are unnecessary to my practice of astrology, and that the outer planets are a step away from first principles as well. Two books I'm currently reading, The General Principles of Astrology by Aleister Crowley/Evangeline Adams and Horary Astrology and the Judgment of Events by Barbara Wattars make the case that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto operate outside of and perhaps above (in a non-materialistic sense) the realm of the seven planets of antiquity. I think there is a place for them in interpretation but certainly don't assign them rulerships. Crowley made the point that it is absurd to toss over the original seven-fold model by trying to jam in the newly-discovered planets, since it does grave harm to the elegant symmetry of the system. (He chose to consider them "Superior "Governors" of the signs, and left the original rulerships intact.}

Minderwiz said:

I'm coming to the conclusion that more and more Astrologers are turning away from the late twentieth century orthodoxy, many are turning to more traditional approaches, others are developing new approaches. But to those who remain steadfastly based in Jung, I can only acknowledge their right to be so. For them the T Square exists and has value. To me the aspects exist and have meaning through the planets involved.

Click to expand...

Count me among those who have grown impatient with the psychological model that came to dominate astrology during the 1970s, and that seems to draw more of its inspiration from the jargon of psychotherapy than it does from astrological fundamentals. But then, I've finally concluded that the "New Age" was a "Piscean pipe-dream" and a "false Spring," so I guess that leaves me howling in the wilderness. But, as Mark Twain said (something like), "Heaven has better weather but Hell has more interesting company.

Barleywine said:

Absolutely, and Alan Leo was looking for a convincing way to extricate himself from persecution as a fortune-teller. The fall-out from that was the "psychological," as opposed to the "deterministic" (or, if you prefer, "predictive"), model that was built on the work of Dane Rudhyar, Marc Edmund Jones, and others of that era. It became the teaching paradigm for a generation (or maybe two) of modern astrologers. I, for one, was taught that the birth chart is a blueprint for the personality and a developmental road map for future growth. Now I'm back-peddling a bit from that approach and exploring traditional methods with great satisfaction.

Click to expand...

I don't really blame Leo for doing what he did. Faced with possible jail, I might have done the same. That general stance of state against Astrology lasted into the 1940s, and the persecution of Helen Duncan (a psychic, rather than an astrologer) shows that the state was prepared to invoke the Witchcraft Acts even in a seemingly sensible society, rather than allow different approaches. It could be argued that Duncan's case occured in wartime and thus in a period of general fear and belief in secrecy but as the Athenians showed during the Peloponessian wars, a country under siege can still uphold the right ot dissent.

For the Astrologers of the 1950s and after, the threat of persecution had largely gone, so perhaps they are more to blame for not putting Astrology back on it's proper course of event oriented predictions.

Barleywine said:

I presently come down somewhere in the middle on this, but am rapidly leaning your way. I think horary gets the credit (or maybe the blame ).

Agreed. The great epiphany for me was beginning to use house rulers much more aggressively to accomplish the integration.

Click to expand...

That I can well understand. For me Astrology fell into place when I began to use house rulers and that led to my interest in horary. Now that taught me the paucity of modern Astrological thought.

Barleywine said:

I decided long ago that asteroids are unnecessary to my practice of astrology, and that the outer planets are a step away from first principles as well. Two books I'm currently reading, The General Principles of Astrology by Aleister Crowley/Evangeline Adams and Horary Astrology and the Judgment of Events by Barbara Wattars make the case that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto operate outside of and perhaps above (in a non-materialistic sense) the realm of the seven planets of antiquity. I think there is a place for them in interpretation but certainly don't assign them rulerships. Crowley made the point that it is absurd to toss over the original seven-fold model by trying to jam in the newly-discovered planets, since it does grave harm to the elegant symmetry of the system. (He chose to consider them "Superior "Governors" of the signs, and left the original rulerships intact.}

Click to expand...

I've never used asteroids. There's an argument that because something is there it must have meaning (or perhaps more properly relevance). I've never found it in the slightest bit convincing. Life is full of things that are 'there' but most of them don't have any or much relevance. We learn to concentrate on the things that matter. The same is true with the minor aspects. I've tried them and written pages of notes on a nativity. In the end they at most said the same thing as the major aspects but in four times as much space. They didn't add to my interpretation and I found if I cut them out my head didn't ache as much

As for the outers. I've never been happy with them, or at least the way modern Astrology uses them. I do recognise that it's now virtually impossible to follow a modern psychological approach without them. But their meanings are almost entirely derived from Greek myth, because Jung had a thing for Greek myths and legends. The Hellenistic Astrologers never used myth to endow planets with meanings. Myth is occasionally used as an example of how a planet might influence a human's behaviour but reading Vettius Valens et al, they are refreshingly myth free compared to any psycholgical textbook.

If the outers are to have genuine astrological meaning, then I think it's more through treating them as fixed stars - three malefic fixed stars because they are rarely interpreted in a positive way, especially Pluto. I've not come to grips with that yet. But it is something I would consider. I don't see them as in anyway 'superior', or' higher octave' just as fixed stars are not superior to planets. But they might be helpful if treated as fixed stars.

Incidentally on the psychological front, I've actually found that the medieval doctrine of the four humours is just as useful as Jung. It's possible to create as meaningful a character analysis (though much less verbose) using those as it is using Jung or Rudhyar.

I recently heard someone who had conducted an extensive investigation into why humans behave as they do, claim that psychology told us very little. Psychological theories come and go and what was flavour of the month one year gets rubbished a few years later. At least with an event oriented approach you are either right or wrong and if you are wrong you can re-examine the chart and find out where you went wrong.

Minderwiz said:

The same is true with the minor aspects. I've tried them and written pages of notes on a nativity. In the end they at most said the same thing as the major aspects but in four times as much space. They didn't add to my interpretation and I found if I cut them out my head didn't ache as much

Click to expand...

I note them (at least the semi-sextile and quincunx) in passing but don't give them much, if any, weight in the delineation unless there is very little else going on. I played with other divisions of the circle (septile, novile, etc.) when I was exploring harmonic charts but no longer bother for routine work.

Minderwiz said:

The Hellenistic Astrologers never used myth to endow planets with meanings. Myth is occasionally used as an example of how a planet might influence a human's behaviour but reading Vettius Valens et al, they are refreshingly myth free compared to any psycholgical textbook.

Click to expand...

It was the mythic dimensions conferred upon the asteroids that made MY head ache. I just didn't see them as grounded enough to be directly applicable to concrete analysis. But just maybe the Uranian astrolgers and there heretofore hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets will have their vindication now that more "traveling gravel" (to use Rob Hand's eloquent phrase) has been discovered beyond Pluto. Not, of course, that I would ever use THEM either.

Minderwiz said:

Incidentally on the psychological front, I've actually found that the medieval doctrine of the four humours is just as useful as Jung. It's possible to create as meaningful a character analysis (though much less verbose) using those as it is using Jung or Rudhyar.

Click to expand...

I noticed this immediately upon encountering the humours; they provide for sufficient shading to adequately serve any character-based interpretation.

Here's a quote from one of the other astrological forums I posted this question on. It very neatly sums up the "psychological" approach of modern astrology. I don't necessarily disagree with the dynamics described, but it seems just as worthwhile to simply consider the two individual squares to the apex planet (are the planets involved complementary or antagonistic, are they applying to or separating from the square, etc.) and simply blend all the different elements, rather than taking it as a "complex" that has some overarching significance of its own.

"I take the apex planet itself to be the dynamic focus.

I look at the t-square as a "psychological complex", with the opposition depicting the "basis" of the complex or fundamental conflict demanding resolution and the apex planet to be the active point of resolution (or failure thereof)."

Minderwiz said:

If the outers are to have genuine astrological meaning, then I think it's more through treating them as fixed stars - three malefic fixed stars because they are rarely interpreted in a positive way, especially Pluto. I've not come to grips with that yet. But it is something I would consider. I don't see them as in anyway 'superior', or' higher octave' just as fixed stars are not superior to planets. But they might be helpful if treated as fixed stars.

Click to expand...

Food for thought. I have three elderly relatives who have all undergone their Uranus return and are now experiencing the Pluto opposition. Two of them are handling it with aplomb but my father-in-law is illustrative of the "dark side." He has become extremely shrunken, self-absorbed and hard-as-nails in his outlook on life (I would say hard-as-diamonds, but not a single ray of light escapes his personality; he reminds me of a black hole). We have only a hypothetical chart on him (no birth time), but I'm thinking of turning his chart to put natal Pluto in the second house, since he's now absolutely and utterly obsessed with the state of his finances (which, considering that he's been retired for over 20 years, are actually in very good shape). The point of all this is that I'm seeing more "immediacy" to the action of Pluto than I might expect to see if I treated it similarly to a fixed star. Admittedly, though, my grasp of fixed-star significance is still minimal and I may be missing something here.