Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Phases & aspects [began as Sesquiquadrate 135 Degree]  (Read 17071 times)
Gonzalo
Very Active Member
**
Posts: 481


« Reply #15 on: Nov 30, 2010, 06:14 AM »

Steve,

Thank you also for your reference to "Aspects, Phases, and Key Planetary Pairs". I'll look forward to purchasing this material as soon as I can. Can this material be sent by email, or is it only in printed version?

Gonzalo
« Last Edit: Nov 30, 2010, 06:30 AM by Gonzalo » Logged
adina
Active Member
*
Posts: 234


« Reply #16 on: Nov 30, 2010, 08:45 AM »

Hi to everyone,

This topic was a very sticky wicket for many people for a long time (You wouldn't beLIEVE what we went through to get to where we are now! LOL), but it WAS resolved long ago on the original EA Message Board BY JWG. I’ve been working for years (on and off) on editing the original message board and sorting the entries into chapters, so I also checked this out with Jeffrey before he retired, and below is the Q&A post of that discussion so long ago now, or the “planet clockwise to the nodes” method of figuring the phase.

Gonzalo, I feel this is not a matter of who’s ‘right and/or wrong’ but what is easy and workable, and the least confusing for the majority of people—especially when they’re new to EA-- I think the most important thing right now is to keep things as simple as possible when people are learning, and if they read 2, 3 or more ways to figure something in the chart, it might create more confusion than intended.
Keeping in mind that it’s through observation and correlation that any astrological archetype takes shape, the relationship of planets to the nodes discussed below has proven itself over and over again. Below is the way that Jeffrey taught it toward the end of his career in ORDER to make it clear and simple for the students. Any way that achieves the same results could certainly be considered, but through experience many of us found this a very simple method to understand and use.

If you, or anyone else, find something different works for you in your experience, then go for it, but I’m posting this method below as the way it was explained in Pluto school, and as a way to keep it simple for the students of the school as they begin their journey with EA--kind of like a foundation from which they can start and branch out later. Once any of us have that foundation, we can add and subtract those things that do or don’t support that foundation. This is just a simple means of beginning that journey, one that works for many people, and one that has all the students on the same page to begin with.
I hope the Q&A below helps answer some of the questions and concerns brought up in the discussion so far.

God Bless,
Adina


Phasal Relationship to Nodes

(Q1): I want to make sure my understanding is accurate when considering phasal relationships to the Nodes of the Moon. Example: Uranus in the 2nd House squaring the South Node in Aquarius in the 11th house and the North Node in Leo in the fifth house. When I am looking at the Uranus phasal relationship to the Nodes, due to the nodal retrograde motion, the square of Uranus to the South Node is 1st Quarter and the square to the North Node is Last Quarter. Is this correct?

(A): Yes.
 
(Q2): To clarify the above question using another example, would the North Node at 10 Cancer and the Moon at 5 Cancer be in a balsamic conjunction?

(A): Yes.
 
(Q3): In a birth chart with the North Node at 1 Leo and Pluto at 28 Leo, considering that the natural movement of the nodes is clockwise and that the North Node recently conjunct Pluto, is this actually a new phase?
 
(A): Yes.

(Q4): If Pluto is in the 1st house at 3 degrees Virgo and the North Node is in the second house at 20 degrees Virgo, is this a new phase conjunction or a balsamic? In other words, is the North Node considered fixed and slower moving or is Pluto the slower moving planet?
 
(A): This is a balsamic conjunction. The motion of retrograde or direct does not matter.

(Q4): I'm confused about the phase being balsamic. I thought from a previous post that Pluto moves slower than the nodes, so Pluto would be the starting point, and I would count counterclockwise to the north node to determine the phase. What am I not understanding?  

(A): Yes, Pluto is slower, but you are forgetting the mean motion of the nodes is retrograde. The north node in your example is approaching Pluto, so it is a balsamic conjunction.

(Q4): At the risk of sounding dull, the only way I can understand this being a balsamic conjunction is if I consider the north node to be a fixed point and count counterclockwise to Pluto. I don't think this is what you're saying. I thought I understood what you meant about the mean motion of the nodes being retrograde, but that's how I came up with it being a new phase conjunction in the first place. Pluto was the stationary planet and I went counterclockwise to the north node. I know this information is on the tapes, but the question was asked at the end of my tape, and I never heard the answer.

(A): Again, the key is to understand that the mean motion of the nodes is retrograde, thus, the north node is approaching Pluto, not moving away from it. If it were moving away from it, you would be correct in thinking it is a new phase. But it is not; it is approaching.

The methodology (model) for determining the phase between a planet and one of the nodes is as follows: pretend you are standing on whichever node and looking into the center of the chart. If the planet is to the right of the node, and depending on its distance from the node, then it is new phase through gibbous and separating (moving away) from the planet (0 to 180 degrees). If the planet is to the left of the node, then it is full phase thru balsamic and applying to (approaching) the planet (180 to 360 degrees).  
Logged
ari moshe
Most Active Member
***
Posts: 1231


« Reply #17 on: Nov 30, 2010, 11:20 AM »

Hi Gonzalo,

Quote
Well, I don’t feel what I posted is incorrect. I may be wrong, but it doesn´t make much sense to ignore the relative speed of the planet/Node, or the direction of the movement. From reading prior posts about this topic some time ago I noted that there were two different ways in use to calculate the phase/aspect between a planet and a Node: one that considers their relative speed, and the retrograde motion of the node, and, on the other side, the way you now indicate. Isn’t it more reasonable to consider the retrograde motion, and the relative speed, which is what is really occurring?

If I am not wrong, in one of the Practice Charts we worked with a balsamic conjunction of Neptune and South Node. A chart was posted by Ari with this paradigm. It is in this page:

http://schoolofevolutionaryastrology.com/forum/index.php/topic,21.570.html

If we’d used the method for calculation you now indicate, this would be a New Phase conjunction, not a Balsamic conjunction. 

No it wouldn't. Whether you start with Neptune and move clockwise, or the sn and move counter clockwise- the result in the same: balsamic.

No matter which method is used, the key is to move in the reverse direction of the normal direction of the planet or node you are starting with. In so doing, we track the past by determining the exact elongation of degrees that has spanned between the planet and node.

For the nodes that reverse direction will always be counter clockwise. For all planets and asteroids, Sun and Moon that will always be clockwise.

Relative speed of two bodies only matters when the two bodies share the same normal direction of motion.
Ari Moshe
Logged
ari moshe
Most Active Member
***
Posts: 1231


« Reply #18 on: Nov 30, 2010, 12:08 PM »

Hi Gonzalo,

Quote
Of course, Ari. But if you start from Neptune and move counter clockwise, or if you start from SN and move clockwise, the result in both cases is New Phase.


But why would you ever move Neptune counter clockwise and the sn clockwise when determining the phase? That would only work if the mean motion for nodes were counter clockwise and the mean motion for planets was clockwise ... I'm sorry if I'm missing something about what your saying here!
Ari Moshe
Logged
Gonzalo
Very Active Member
**
Posts: 481


« Reply #19 on: Nov 30, 2010, 01:00 PM »

Hi Ari, Steve, Upasika and Adina

I've read all this again, and I found you are right: because the motion of the nodes is retrograde, and the motion of the planets is direct, the relative speed of the planet as compared with the node is irrelevant. If the planet is slower than the node, the distance between that planet and the node has been traveled by the node in clockwise direction; if the planet is faster than the node, the distance between that planet and the  node has been traveled, by the planet, in counter-clockwise direction. In both cases, that distance is the same. So, the simplified methods for calculations proposed would apply in all cases.

I will rather delete my prior posts on this to avoid further confusion.

Thanks for clarification

God Bless,

Gonzalo
Logged
adina
Active Member
*
Posts: 234


« Reply #20 on: Nov 30, 2010, 01:50 PM »

Well, God Bless you, too, Gonzalo. As I posted above, you wouldn't believe what we all went through before we got to the point of the above Q&A with Jeffrey!  LOL  We all have to process information in our own ways, and like I said, it's not a matter of right or wrong.... just what might be the simplest way for people to understand, especially when they're starting out.

Logged
Steve
Admin
Most Active Member
*****
Posts: 566


« Reply #21 on: Nov 30, 2010, 09:40 PM »

Hi all

To add two cents more...

The planet-clockwise-to-the-node method is not the only method that works when calculating the phase between a planet and a node.  It is by far the simplest method I've come across, and that is why the EA school teaches it, as its enough information for most EA students.

I believe Upasika's method was coming up with identical results to this method.  Any method that comes up with identical results is a valid way to do the calculations.  Upasika's approach takes into account the behind the scenes technical stuff regarding WHY we calculate the phase as we do.  Doing it that way reveals the WHY behind the principle.  However over the years that approach has repeatedly proven too complicated for most students.  Therefore we teach the simpler way of getting to the same result. 

A method that comes up with different results than this method is not an accurate method, because the results will always come out the same when the method used is a valid one, no matter what valid method is used.

The point here has never been about a right or wrong way.  The concern has simply been to make things as simple and accurate as possible, for the benefit of students of EA, present and future.  That's the whole point of this board.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this.
Steve
Logged

Steve
Admin
Most Active Member
*****
Posts: 566


« Reply #22 on: Nov 30, 2010, 09:41 PM »

Hi Gonzalo

Quote
Thank you also for your reference to "Aspects, Phases, and Key Planetary Pairs". I'll look forward to purchasing this material as soon as I can. Can this material be sent by email, or is it only in printed version?

As far as I know that is only available in the printed form.
Steve
Logged

Upasika
Very Active Member
**
Posts: 350


« Reply #23 on: Nov 30, 2010, 11:14 PM »

Hi Steve,

I've had no problems with this throughout the discussion ... it does make sense to teach one method, and the moving clockwise from planet to the Node in every situation is such a simple method, its an obvious choice.

I left the other method tucked in there as it's just based on the actual motions of the two planets concerned from the conjunction point onwards, so is very natural in that sense, and I thought it may be of interest to some. I've pointed readers to the preferred method later in the post, but if we'd be better off without it in at all, I'll happily just take it out ... if that would be best just let me know.

blessings Upasika
Logged
Steve
Admin
Most Active Member
*****
Posts: 566


« Reply #24 on: Nov 30, 2010, 11:18 PM »

Hi Upasika

Hi Steve,

I've had no problems with this throughout the discussion ... it does make sense to teach one method, and the moving clockwise from planet to the Node in every situation is such a simple method, its an obvious choice.

I left the other method tucked in there as it's just based on the actual motions of the two planets concerned from the conjunction point onwards, so is very natural in that sense, and I thought it may be of interest to some. I've pointed readers to the preferred method later in the post, but if we'd be better off without it in at all, I'll happily just take it out ... if that would be best just let me know.

blessings Upasika

No, no, its fine that your post is there.  I was humorously going to add to my last post that any students wanting to know more technical details about why this rule works should look you up!  What you have there is true.  And some people will want to know that information, so having it there is actually helpful.
thank you
Steve
Logged

Gonzalo
Very Active Member
**
Posts: 481


« Reply #25 on: Dec 01, 2010, 06:53 AM »

Hi Steve and Adina,

I really don't care about being wrong, or right. Not anymore, unless I perceive an implied personal judgement about me (which is not the case), or when I feel I am being manipulated, or pricked (which is not the case with you, Adina, but which seems to be the case with you, Steve!). It would have been easier for me if you'd told me in the beginning that the simplified method was intended to provide the same results that consideration of all the existing factors. Added to the fact I got confused when applying the premises! which at some points gave me different results. What I thought then was that comparative methods gave different results because of  different implied premises of what was involved in the planet-node phases, ie. that there was a difference or a multiplication of the premises. As you didn't tell me that a long (and correctly applied) method and the simplified method would give the same results, I felt I was being made to accept the simplified method without understanding why it worked. This just ignited my rebelliousness and my need to verify by myself. But indeed I felt alleviated when in the end found out where I was "wrong" -in the application of the premises.

Thank you so much for all,

God Bless,

Gonzalo
Logged
Stacie
Active Member
*
Posts: 177


« Reply #26 on: Dec 01, 2010, 11:24 PM »

Ari, your material on the sesquiquadrate dynamic/archetype and its phase distinctions is excellent stuff. The sesquiquad is one archetype I feel is quite underrepresented in astrological writings.  I've by no means scoured the earth for everything that has been written on the aspect, but can simply say that I'm typically unmoved by what I've come across, one obvious exception being JWG's material.  But I will say that what you've articulated did have a resonating affect for me, for what's it's worth to know that.  So good for you! And good for us!  

Gonzalo.. as random and out-of-the-blue as this statement may be, just wanted to say that I find a real depth of love in my soul for who you are.  Your innate humility and courageous self-candor is quite beautiful to me.  There are many occasions where the simple act of reading something you've posted, of itself, induces a healing affect within.  I tell you that for no real reason, other than I just really felt like saying it! Ha! :-)

Great discussion in this thread, people.  And Upasika, I would like to borrow some left-brain if that's alright with you.

God Bless,
Stacie
Logged
Upasika
Very Active Member
**
Posts: 350


« Reply #27 on: Dec 01, 2010, 11:32 PM »

Hi Stacie,

Sure, just let me know what you have in mind..?  .. (and also Gonzalo, like Stacie I also appreciate what you have to say when you post).

Upasika
« Last Edit: Dec 01, 2010, 11:44 PM by Upasika » Logged
Steve
Admin
Most Active Member
*****
Posts: 566


« Reply #28 on: Dec 02, 2010, 12:17 AM »

hi Gonzalo

After reading what you said, I went back and read again what I had written to you.  I didn't find a word in it that was pricking of you in any way.  In fact the only thing I said that was addressed to you was my request that you mark what you had written as being updated in posts that followed yours, SO AS NOT TO CONFUSE FUTURE READERS OF THE MATERIAL.  I clearly made that point in my request. 

After those posts you had a series of back and forth posts with some other people, disagreeing over your methodology.  I did not say a word about any of that.  They were trying to help you see the fallacy in the way you were looking at it, and you were not hearing it at all.

Finally someone posted some material from which you were able to find the fallacy in your thinking. To your credit, you owned that there had been pieces missing in the way you looked at it. 

I had nothing to do with any of that.  So I don't understand why you feel pricked by me when there were several people who were telling you that your approach was wrong.  I said nothing of the sort. All I did was post some words from Jeffrey, and explain why we teach the methodology that we do.  And I asked you to mark what you had written as "revised in a later post", for the sole reason of avoiding confusing future readers of this topic.  There was nothing personal intended about you in anything I wrote.

No one here is or will be trying to make you wrong.  We all at times misunderstand things and express things we think are right that turn out not to be.  And I put myself at the top of that list.  There is really no reason to get into a defensive place.  No one here is going to tell you that you are wrong, without reason.  At the same time, if someone has a different or deeper perspective to communicate, if one of us is so invested in how we are seeing things that we tune them out, don't take in what they are saying, or feel threatened or attacked, we are not really going to learn something new now, are we.

Its momentary moments of loss of respect, when we are digging in our heels and not listening - that is the problem, always.  Not just on the message board but in life itself.  (At times I do that myself, thus I know.)  I am bringing this up because there is something we all can learn from what happened here, and that something is about a lot more than just sesquiquads or how to calculate phases to the nodes. 

In a way I'm glad you expressed that you felt pricked by me, even though I feel I did nothing to prick you.  Because at least you honestly expressed what you felt (which took courage), and then it can be addressed.  This again to me is EA or life in action.  Its not just about learning the intellectual information about this and that astrological tidbit, but also applying it to real life situations and processes, interpersonal relationships.  As my Aquarius joke goes, Aquarians love humanity, its people they can't stand.  Because its in those one to one's with people it can get messy and personal.  Our wounds start bleeding through.  EA is about exposing the wounds so we can work to heal them, one person helping the next.  That is why this kind of talk is quite appropriate on the message board even though its not directly about EA.  It is directly about EA APPLIED to human life.

take care, my friend
Steve
Logged

Gonzalo
Very Active Member
**
Posts: 481


« Reply #29 on: Dec 02, 2010, 12:43 PM »

Dear Steve,

I really appreciate and am thankful for your reply at a personal level. I did not have any intention to offend you when using the word “prick”. I felt I was being “pricked”; though, I should add, that didn’t feel offensive to me. Perhaps “pricking” is not the right word. What I meant is like pushing some buttons as to produce a reaction, or some irritation. I just felt I was being pricked for some reason, but I didn’t know “why”. I didn’t make any judgment about that, and consciously refused making hypotheses. Perhaps we are just getting stuck in words. When reading your last post I tended to react further because you now chose word “fallacy”, which has many connotations beyond error. But I will trust that you are not trying to “push my buttons”, because that’s what I perceive in the totality of your post.

I consciously decided to avoid my most common reaction, which is to withdraw. And you’re right in that it was an act of courage. I think I will have to keep doing it this way, even though it is quite difficult for me doing so, and I just hope it will get swifter in some near future. Not sure if this will happen. Currently these dynamics are intensified within me, as transiting Pluto t-squares my Sun/Uranus conjunction in the 3rd House Libra-opposed Chiron 9th House Aries. I hope at some point it will become more clear that I don’t intend to offend anyone here. Thanks for your patience.


Hi Stacie,

Thank you for your post and those kind words. I am happy that you perceive that in me. Very few people can. Personally, I have the same type of feeling and sympathy for you.


Upasika: thank you!

God Bless,

Gonzalo

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Video