Why the Quincunx?

[Fire Cat]

Reading up on astrology sites, one thing comes up again and again in synastry and composite charts: the importance of the quincunx with Mars. I notice this on more than one site so
there must be something there .

Anyway, why the quincunx and just with Mars? Also is the same thing true with the quintile with Mars? Your opinion?

Thanks

ps. personally I look at strong angles less than a degree and in arcseconds. Rarely do I look at planets other than the personal planets.

[Minderwiz]

Reading your post I reached for John Townley's book Composite Charts, which is the classic text on composite charts. Townley doesn't refer to inconjuncts (30 & 150 degrees) in his analysis of composites, He uses the major aspects alone, though he clearly uses more than these in natal work, including mid points and harmonic charts. Therefore I conclude that whilst others may use these 'aspects', he doesn't see them as useful or at least of more than passing significance. Given his status in the field, I would take that as strong evidence that strong emphasis should not be placed on them.

Modern Astrology treats the quincunx as an aspect, though it fails to meet the traditional criteria for an aspectual relationship. Indeed it is an in conjunct....that is by definition, not an aspect.

That doesn't mean it is meaningless. An inconjunct is quite literally a failure to see, understand or relate. It can show a state of ignorance, disconnection or even absence, which may carry some significance at a lower level than a major aspects.

Why Mars? Without reading the websites you allude to, I can't say for certain what these Astrologers particularly had in mind, as Mars, like all planets, has many related meanings. Mars can signify energy, action, assertion, aggression for the psychological astrologer (and these and much more for the traditional astrologer). So in the context of this thread that might suggest a circumstance where energy cannot flow and the relationship may fail.

Mars is also a natural significator of men....so from a traditional point of view it could indicate problems with some aspect (non astrological) of the man's nature.

However, whatever they are alluding to, I would not treat it as something of more than minor; importance.....there are more important things to look at, angularity, conjunctions, oppositions, squares, trines and sex tiles are obvious examples.

[Fire Cat]

Thank you for the response. I usually stick with major aspects as well.

[Fire Cat]

I thought inconjunct was 180°...

I also dont see the conjunct as an aspect as it is 0° and Mercury is so often at 0° with Sun and or Venus as to render it useless anyway.

ETA: changing 0° to 180°

[Minderwiz]

Originally Posted by Fire Cat

I thought inconjunct was 180°...

I also dont see the conjunct as an aspect as it is 0° and Mercury is so often at 0° with Sun and or Venus as to render it useless anyway.

ETA: changing 0° to 180°

No, 180 is the opposition

Strictly speaking the conjunction is not an aspect. Aspects are 'seeing' or 'beholding' relationships, whereas the conjunction is a 'corporeal joining....two or more bodies at the exact same location (in terms of zodiacal latitude). It is however stronger than any aspect of equal degree and location.

Apart from a conjunction, Mercury makes no aspect to the Sun. I give it more weight when its visible, direct and fast (and by essential dignity)

[Fire Cat]

Originally Posted by Minderwiz

No, 180 is the opposition

Strictly speaking the conjunction is not an aspect. Aspects are 'seeing' or 'beholding' relationships, whereas the conjunction is a 'corporeal joining....two or more bodies at the exact same location (in terms of zodiacal latitude). It is however stronger than any aspect of equal degree and location.

Apart from a conjunction, Mercury makes no aspect to the Sun. I give it more weight when its visible, direct and fast (and by essential dignity)

Busy week totally forgot to respond....

Thank you for the info. I didn't realize the conjunction was even more potent. I figured it would have been the other way around.

[dadsnook2000]

Some astrologers see aspects as the result of dividing the circle by basic numbers; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. Dividing by 2 yields the opposition. The number two relates to both partners, the "other", the "not-self" and opposition or enemies. The same goes for dividing by three, four, etc. Further, some astrologers grant the conjunction a 12 degree (or so) orb of influence. The opposition would have half of that or six degrees, the square even less, etc.

On the other hand, the relatively modern school of harmonics would find the inconjunct aspect (150 degrees) to be a conjunction in the twelfth harmonic chart and an opposition in the sixth harmonic chart.

** The twelfth harmonic chart needs to be read in terms of the full life experience of man so one would judge the planet positions relative to expecting a degree of maturity and assimilation of how the symbols would be combined and utilized.

** The sixth harmonic chart needs to be read in terms of communicating, travel and the gathering of experiences not yet encountered. As a challenge, the opposition of two planets having an inconjunct relationship in the natal chart would need to be openly addressed and some form of accommodation or resolving effort made.

In terms of "phase relationships" the inconjunct points to adjustment, the seeking of new skills to cover inadequacies that have come to light.

So, there is a lot to think about in terms of the injunction. Whether the astrologer does or does not want to consider these relative fine-tuned concepts in an interpretation is a matter of judgement and awareness of these fine points. Dave

[Minderwiz]

Dave makes some interesting observations there and they illustrate one of the major problems facing the newcomer to Astrology, or at least its Western counterpart.

Any approach to Astrology will change over time, grow, develop and evolve. However in the West this process has been complicated by two major fractures. The first of these came with the fall of the Roman Empire till it's reintroduction in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries and then after the end of the Sixteenth Century till it's revival at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. Although during both interludes there were still practitioners, it lost its academic status and tradition. This meant that in both resumptions, there was a major rediscovery, or indeed development outside the tradition. The first resumption was dominated by the revisions of Arabian and Persian ideas, the second by Theosophist and later Jungian views, though there were and are many other offshoots.

This leavers Western Astrology much more diverse (and some would say richer as a result) than it's cousin. Jyotish (or Vedic) Astrology which has an unbroken tradition of nearly 2000 years. There are different takes on almost everything you can think of, and of course it's difficult, not to say impossible, to predict what Astrology would have been like if those interludes had not happened because it would have developed and changed in a number of ways.

Originally aspects were nothing to do with division of a circle, or harmonics but to the possible ways in which a perfect figure could be inscribed in a circle. Threes (Cardinal, Fixed and Mutable signs) and fours (Fire, Earth, Air and Water) create the Square and the Trine or Trigon. The opposition gives a single line and the Hexagon the Sextile, all other of today's minor aspects fail to yield a figure that fits perfectly into the Zodiacal Wheel, without significant distortion. (see http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspects.html)

Also it's possible that aspects originally were by sign, not by degree. However certainly by middle to late Hellenistic times the degree was the main criterion used, rather than sign (though out of sign aspects were not recognised). The inconjuncts - the semi-sextile and quincunx were not seen as aspects, the semi-sextile being seen as too obtuse to be useful and the quincunx to give no relationship (though as I pointed out earlier this doesn't mean that nothing is going on).

It's quite possible that the minor aspects would have been developed anyway or that harmonics would have come into use (as harmony is an essentially Greek concept) but whether the meanings would have been the same as modern ones, is impossible to say.

Thus we are left with far more variety and possibly far less astrological basis than we might have had but there's nothing we can do to change that. It's a fact that we have to live with and the new student has to cope with. Even those of us who seek to build on a traditional base, can't say for sure what the tradition is, because so much has either been lost, or is subject to difficulties in interpretation - that is to say a clear understanding of how Astrology was practiced.

Personally I'd say that an Astrologer needs a clear system and techniques that fit that system, rather than dipping into a variety of possibly incompatible systems and techniques. Until you are able to do that the practice of Astrology will always be confusing. Start with a basic or introductory text, keep to major aspects before you try minors, harmonics or midpoints (or Greek Lots/Arabian Parts) and the minimum number of bodies which you feel comfortable with (this is usually the 7 classical plus the 3 'modern' planets) and only add as you feel real need to explore beyond your thorough understanding of the basics.

[dadsnook2000]

Minderwiz is quite correct in noting all of the new developments of the past decades relative to the collection of somewhat related methods of ancient and recent historical astrological practices.

Dane Rudhyar introduced some concepts that are now included within the broader form of
"phase relationships." His Lunation Cycle introduced another way of looking at the two lights in our charts. Not only in terms of their positional relationship but also in terms of the ever continuing waxing and waning phases and the meanings that that represented in our daily life and in how dealt with progressions.

His book led to other works such as the Engine of Destiny by Marc Robertson (and his other works) that showed how the phase relationships between eight planet pairings could be used as a short cut to quickly grasping the essence of a natal chart --- or of other charts. Once this essential framework is grasped, the details of a chart fall into place quite quickly.

From this information, one can jump to either or both of two other developments. Harmonics was introduced big time by several British astrologers, building on the work of the 1900's German school of Witte and Ebertin and others who used the midpoint systems. These efforts were the forerunner of harmonics, although they remain distinct and highly popular in their own right today as one major branch of astrological practice. Harmonics permit us to view the natal chart through several windows and has been very useful in certain branches such as weather and financial astrology as well as medical astrology.

Ebertin's 90 degree wheel portrays a chart in the 4th harmonic which is related to "events." Other harmonics relate to other viewpoints into life.

One type of practice is that of "Containment." This process looks at any three planets which have a sequencial relationship, one after the other. These three-planet combinations can be read much like midpoints are read (in a broad sense) but do follow their own rules of interpretation. It is quite easy, as has been shown in the past of this forum, that a natal chart can be read with great clarity without referring to houses, signs, aspects.

These are all "new" developments in astrology. While most early-studies students might seek to avoid what they see as complexities in astrology, I would state that once one has a basic understanding of astrology that the pursuit of these practices actually enlarges and quickens one's understanding of astrology. This permits one to casually adopt and use whatever technique feels right in each particular chart reading. AND, in spite of bringing complexity to the subject, one reaches a point where greater simplicity is achieved due to the more relaxed approach one takes to using our craft. Dave

[Minderwiz]

Originally Posted by dadsnook2000

Minderwiz is quite correct in noting all of the new developments of the past decades relative to the collection of somewhat related methods of ancient and recent historical astrological practices.

Dane Rudhyar introduced some concepts that are now included within the broader form of
"phase relationships." His Lunation Cycle introduced another way of looking at the two lights in our charts. Not only in terms of their positional relationship but also in terms of the ever continuing waxing and waning phases and the meanings that that represented in our daily life and in how dealt with progressions.

I think the operative phrase here is "....the meanings that that represented in everyday life" as the lunation cycle has been known for thousands of years and there are astrological interpretations of that cycle that we know date back 2,000 years, the issue for the student is whether Rudhyar's ideas add new and valued meaning. And that is not a really something an entry level student, or even an advanced student can easily make a judgement on.

Originally Posted by Dadsnook2000

His book led to other works such as the Engine of Destiny by Marc Robertson (and his other works) that showed how the phase relationships between eight planet pairings could be used as a short cut to quickly grasping the essence of a natal chart --- or of other charts. Once this essential framework is grasped, the details of a chart fall into place quite quickly.

Again phase relationships (though the term was not used) lie at the heart of Astrology, and have done for 2,000 years, the real issue for the student is the value of new interpretations. Its clearly very possible that Rudhyar and Robertson have taken a new and highly useful twist on an old theme. However to make a judgement requires the student to have a fairly well developed knowledge of what was there beforehand....otherwise there is no frame of reference to enable decision making. Its also important to have a developed view of what Astrology is (itself highly debatable). These issues can be overcome, but to do this requires time and energy, that in a continuous development would not be needed. The lack of continuity means a continuing rediscovery and reworking. Very interesting for keen Astroloders like me and Dave but a real stumbling block for the new student.

Originally Posted by Dadsnook2000

One type of practice is that of "Containment." This process looks at any three planets which have a sequencial relationship, one after the other. These three-planet combinations can be read much like midpoints are read (in a broad sense) but do follow their own rules of interpretation. It is quite easy, as has been shown in the past of this forum, that a natal chart can be read with great clarity without referring to houses, signs, aspects.

Beseigement is the traditional term for containment, so the idea of a planet or planets in conjunction being affected by surrounding planets is not new and in itself does not necessarily require signs or houses...whether there removal brings added clarity to the subsequent analysis or dilutes that analysis to banality is a decision the student must take. Even the relative weight given to beseigement/containment against houses, sign and aspects is a problem to be confronted, whether a modern or traditional stance is taken.

Dave is right in that the questions raised here and the techniques to which they refer (both traditional and modern) are best set aside by the beginner. Both Dave and I agree that modern sign meanings are very dubious in terms of adding anything meaningful. I see sign placement as one of a number of things that help evaluate the strength of a planet in a chart (along with angularity, some form of phase relationship and aspects) Other factors that Dave mentions have a real role to play but first the student needs some form of context.

In some ways we are dealing with nuance and cultural perception, rather than fundamental differences. Dave and I apply the same type of technique, though the form may differ and often (perhaps 90%+) reach essentially the same conclusion or even exactly the same conclusion. That to me is one of the joys of Astrology but the sad thing is that its not as easy to achieve as it should be. Those two losses of knowledge and understanding have made life difficult for us.....a. pity