Book - The Sun and The Aspects

Minderwiz

I recently bought 'The Sun and The Aspects by Maurice McCann I'm currently about three quarters of the way through reading it.

McCann's expertise lies in his research into the technical roots of Astrology. Although a traditional Astrologer by leaning, his book is not designed to prove that the ancient ideas were right. Rather he tries to see if there is still any validity in some of the central concepts to traditional Astrology and whether these have any application or use to the modern Astrologer.

The book is just over 100 pages long but McCann packs an awful lot into that space. Indeed there is so much that one criticism I have is that he doesn't develop some of the points he makes, they are simply thrown out for consideration.

The central theme of the book is the vital importance of the Sun to the entire Astrological system and to show that the major aspects depend almost entirely on the Sun for their existence.

He goes on to examine the introduction of the minor aspects and asks to what extent they are based on Astrological principles and ends with a consideration of the present approach of allowing orbs to aspects rather than planets. He does not set out to explain a system of his own or to insist that his view is the only acceptable one. He is actually trying to start discussions about some of the ideas and freely admits that some of his views are speculation. As he seems to want people to discuss these issues, I thought it might be an idea to start one or two threads based on them.

If any of you find the ideas interesting and want to know more about them, his book costs £6.95 and is published by his own company Tara Astrological Publications. The standard of publication is not particularly good, but then at that price it is quite acceptable.

I'll add a few links in a further post to those of his views which I start a thread on.
 

Minderwiz

I've now finished reading the book so I thought I'd just add a couple of last comments.

McCann shows four main periods (though not of equal length) in the history of Astrology. The first period he calls natural Astrology and says that during this period Astrologers first identified aspects by looking at the sky (the word aspect means to look at or view). In this period it's likely that the major aspects were identified, simply by looking andy using hands and fingers as a measuring rod. Later in this period real measuring rods were developed using the geometry of triangles. Signs were not really used at this stage, simply planetary relationships. So it didn't matter if aspecst were 'out of sign' Also during this period the inter-relation of Sun and Moon were identified and predictions of new moons, full moons, eclipses etc made. Predictions were of natural events, the coming seasons, when to plant when to reap, when the high tide would come.

By the second period signs were becoming important and Astrologers were beginning to codify their science. This reached its epitome in Ptolemy and the Tetrabiblos. This was a system based on Astrological theory and on observation. The Sun was at the centre of this system and all dignities, aspects and other astrological phenomena were recognised as being contrlled by the Sun.

The third phase was between Kepler and Alan Leo. Kepler invented aspects based both on dividing the circle and on musical harmonics. The minor aspects came into being - some by Kepler himself others developed later. McCann argues that these aspects were not based on Astrological theory or observable data - they were based on mathematics not Astrology. Thus he treats all minor aspects as being ungrounded in Astrology.

The last and current phase was started by Alan Leo - in this phase orbs were given to aspects, rather than planets (which had previously been the case). Leo also opened the door to the psychological approach to Astrology. Whilst this introduced good ideas such as an ethical approach to Astrology, most of the new bread of Astrologers did not understand the basis of the system and ideas they were using. Thus there was a move to get rid of old ideas (such as Cazimi or 'under the beams' or dignities such as Terms and Face). McCann actually feels that some of the historical ideas may not be valid - the original basis of the ideas may have been lost, or texts miscopied or miswritten. However the Ptolemaic system is valid and should serve as the basis for any discussion about improving Astrology.

The basic message appears to be that we should understand Astrology before we start to tinker with it or we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

His main message is that Astrology is based on real observable planetary movements - without the planets there can be no Astrology, therefore we should spend more time looking at how the planets relate to each other, rather than inventing new aspects - he feels that you can't have aspects simply as arcs of a circle, there's much more to them based on the planets involved.
 

ncefafn

So does he consider the inconjunct aspects (semi-sextile and quincunx) invalid?

All I know about Maurice McCann is what I heard from friends who attended the first astrology symposium in Belgrade a few years ago -- that he's a wild man. :laugh:

Kim
 

jmd

The book sounds right up my alley...

If you have further details, please let me know.

Doing a quick search, I wasn't able to locate a copy.

edited to add:

here's a link to the book and his site:

Tara Astrology

(I don't know what happened in my earlier search!)
 

Minderwiz

I'm not sure whether McCann is indeed a 'wild man' but yes he does treat the inconjuncts as not being aspects. In so doing he follows tradition. Ptolemy took these as not being aspects and virtually every Astrologer till the 20th Century follows suit.

The reason that these two 'aspects' were not allowed was based on the relationship with other signs. Aspects required two signs (so the conjunction is not an aspect) and the two signs had to be involved either in a 'commandin/obeying' relationship or an 'Equal power' relationship. These relationships are dependent on the signs being equi distant from the same equinoctial sign (either Aries or Libra). Signs that are not equidistant cannot form aspects - So Taurus and Pisces can form aspects but Taurus and Gemini cannot.

Lee Lehman in her book on Classical astrology shows that it's possible, to treat some inconjuncts as aspects, even keeping to Ptolemy's rules

This approach does much to debar any other aspects than the major ones - so all the minor aspects are removed :)

Now this isn't McCann's idea it was basic Astrological theory till the time of Kepler and even beyond. If minor aspects are to be allowed then we need some Astrological basis on which they can be seen to hold. McCAnn doesn't allow the nature of numbers as an underpinning element of aspects, Kepler did.


The treatment of aspects is quite complex so I might start a thread on that as an issue.
 

Lee

Minderwiz, please excuse a dumb question, but could you explain what you mean by allowing orbs to aspects rather than to planets?

Thanks --
Lee
 

ncefafn

Minderwiz said:
I'm not sure whether McCann is indeed a 'wild man' but yes he does treat the inconjuncts as not being aspects. In so doing he follows tradition. Ptolemy took these as not being aspects and virtually every Astrologer till the 20th Century follows suit.

Does that mean that Ptolemy was aware of these -- for the sake of argument, let's call them degrees rather than aspects -- aware of these "degrees", that they had been promulgated by other astrologers, but decided that they didn't qualify as aspects because they didn't conform to his rules? Or does it mean that Ptolemy never considered their existence in astrological terms because those degrees didn't conform to his rules?

I'm a little leary of arguments suggesting one whole approach is wrong because that's not how they did it back in umpty-hundred B.C. or because it's not "natural" but rather man-made. They didn't used to pasteurize dairy products either, and lots of people got sick and died. Because it's old doesn't make it better. And as for McCann's diatribe against mathematics, I don't remember Plato arguing for the banishment of mathematicians in his Republic. Ancient Greeks in general got along quite well with mathematics.

New approaches may not always be right, but they do deserve consideration. Having formed an hypothesis, one tests it. Those tests, if structured and performed correctly, will either prove or disprove the hypothesis. But if you refuse to even consider the hypothesis because it flies in the face of accepted theory, then in my opinion, you have lost your value as a member of that field of endeavor. Closed-mindedness is the death of any system, including astrology.

Respectfully,

Kim
 

Minderwiz

Kim,

Yes Ptolemy was indeed aware of both therse 'aspects' - he refers to them as being disjunct. So he clearly decided that they did not meet the criteria he was using for aspects.

You are quite right to have a degree of scepticism about these areas. For a long time it was assumed that Ptolemy codified what was then known about Astrology and Astronomy. However it is by no means clear that he was either a practising Astrologer/Astronomer - he may simply have written down the work of others.

Furthermore as we learn more about Arab and Greek Astrology there are doubts as to whether Ptolemy represented mainstream Astrology of his day. The discovery of the works of Dorotheus of Sidon, amongst others poses some questions. However as far as I'm aware none of the other classical Astrologers treated the semi-sextile and the quincunx as aspects. They did seem to recognise that their existence might indicate problems in things coming to pass - if the relevant significators couldn't 'see' each other then they might not co-operate. :)

The issue of mathematics is an interesting one. The Greeks did indeed have a fascination with maths and, as you say, it underlay many of their approaches to life and a belief in order.

When Kepler introduced the quintiles he drew not only on the mathematics of the circle but also the mathematics of harmony. The Ptolemaic aspects correspond to music intervals, the sextile corresponds to a minor third, the square to a perfect fourth, the trine to a perfect fifth and the opposition to an octave. Kepler introduced the Quintile (corresponding to a major third) the bi-quintile (a major sixth) and the sesquiquadrate (135 degrees corresponding to a minor sixth). All other possible aspects (except the majors) he rejected.

McCann's case is that music is not Astrology and that aspects should only be allowed if they have a basis in Astrology. Now whilst the Ptolemaic ones do, I'm sure that Ptolemy would have been aware of the connection to the intervals on the musical scale and would have seen this as confirmation that these aspects were important. From a numerological point of view it's possible to argue (as Plato would) that the underlying structure of the world has order and system and that whole numbers can show the essence of that system.

I'm therefore by no means sure that I would reject Kepler because his aspects are 'musical' rather than 'astrological'. However if we simply allow any division of the circle (including what would be discordant notes in music) are we really adding anything new and indeed where do we stop?

McCann doesn't particularly say that Ptolemy was right - the end. He simply says that if we want to introduce new ideas we should start from an understanding of why astrology is as it is. The Ptolemaic system may not be perfect, or even correct, but it offers a starting point for the analysis of what works and what doesn't.

He seems to be trying to be open-minded but wants new ideas to rest on clear Astrological principles rather than psychological, musical or mathematical. I don't think that's unreasonable, cetainly as a basis for discussion.
 

dadsnook2000

Some comments.

Well, Minderwiz, your author sounds like "my kind of guy." As you and others are aware, I often work with "just the basics" of astrology -- the planets, the angles, a few major aspects -- and not the houses and signs and minor aspects and rulers.

While this is not always true of all my work, as evidenced by the Life Purposes threads where I do use rulerships, I have found that sometimes simplicity leads to greater insight and greater accuracy of readings -- as well as requiring a lot less work. I'll be interested in any other comments you offer. I haven't seen the book in our local book stores yet but I'll look for it.

Thanks for sharing. Dave.
 

Lee

Lee said:
Minderwiz, please excuse a dumb question, but could you explain what you mean by allowing orbs to aspects rather than to planets?

Thanks --
Lee
Anyone? Help...? :)

-- Lee