Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Technical question for Adina / Rad/ Steve whomever know thtis  (Read 2592 times)
PamS
Active Member
*
Posts: 124


« on: Sep 30, 2009, 07:05 PM »

Hi All

I have a node technical question.... when finding the aspects with the nodes ..

we start with the planet first (sun-moon etc) and then move clockwise to the node correct?     

im looking at a chart with a stellium in scorpio (not pluto) and the NN at 22 libra.... these planets are new phase with NN  in Libra correct?

after all this time, i still get this one confused


thanks,

pam


adina, nice to hear you on this board again....

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


« Reply #1 on: Oct 01, 2009, 10:27 AM »

Hi Pam

I get confused at times with this also.   Brain doesn't always work so well.

Yes, you are correct.
Logged

Rad
Moderator
Most Active Member
*****
Posts: 19857


« Reply #2 on: Oct 01, 2009, 10:29 AM »

Hi Pam,

Hi All

I have a node technical question.... when finding the aspects with the nodes ..

we start with the planet first (sun-moon etc) and then move clockwise to the node correct? 

****************************************************************************

 We always start with the SLOWER moving planet of the two planets or points being considered. And then in a clockwise direction determine the degrees of separation between the two. When using the nodes, because the mean motion is retrograde, the rule is reversed: using the slower moving point of the two you count in a counter-clockwise direction. When using the Sun the Sun is always the first point of reference.

**************************************************************************   

im looking at a chart with a stellium in scorpio (not pluto) and the NN at 22 libra.... these planets are new phase with NN  in Libra correct?

************************************************************************

Yes.

************************************************************************

after all this time, i still get this one confused


thanks,

pam


adina, nice to hear you on this board again....




 Rad
Logged
PamS
Active Member
*
Posts: 124


« Reply #3 on: Oct 01, 2009, 12:44 PM »

Thank you
Thank you

both Steve and Rad...

blessings and have a nice week

Pam
Logged
PamS
Active Member
*
Posts: 124


« Reply #4 on: Oct 01, 2009, 07:13 PM »


 "We always start with the SLOWER moving planet of the two planets or points being considered. And then in a clockwise direction determine the degrees of separation between the two. When using the nodes, because the mean motion is retrograde, the rule is reversed: using the slower moving point of the two you count in a counter-clockwise direction. When using the Sun the Sun is always the first point of reference."

im looking at a chart with a stellium in scorpio (not pluto) and the NN at 22 libra.... these planets are new phase with NN  in Libra correct?

************************************************************************

Yes.

Rad,

 you mean the opposite right?   What I was taught was that the slower moving planets you go counter-clockwise with the nodes you move clockwise...,  You are telling me in your previous response that I was correct, but at the same time I was doing it backwards...

could you please clarity... This is such a funny point to get clear with....

thank you,
Pam
Logged
adina
Active Member
*
Posts: 234


« Reply #5 on: Oct 01, 2009, 09:48 PM »

Hi Pam,

Yikes! I KNEW this one would come back to haunt us one day!   Grin  LOL  Like Steve said, it's confusing. We had an extensive discussion with Jeffrey--with examples--on the original MB years ago, and I made sure I clarified things with him when I first started editing the old MB and he was still available. I'm posting the MB discussion below. The last paragraph is an explanation of the actual methodology to use in determining the phasal relationship to the nodes. Hope this helps.

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
Lia
Active Member
*
Posts: 135


« Reply #6 on: Oct 02, 2009, 01:15 AM »

Hi Everyone,

Thanks so much Adina for posting the above!
Pam, it is INDEED a confusing subject:-)

My understanding was that as long as the planet(s) mean motion is slower than the nodes motion (speed) we consider the the planet as the 'fix' point....so we apply the nodes motion including its DIRECTION. SO AS ABOVE CLOCKWISE.....when the nodes speed are SLOWER than twe consider the NODE as the 'fix' point thus apply the PLANET'S mean motion including direction (=rconterclockwise)

So after all this I STILL have confusion!  ; For I thought relative to the phasal relationship we apply the above qated rule only when we are dealing with a planet which is SLOWERA THAN THE NODES ....

So relative to the speed determined rule I understood : we consider first what is the slower moving body and only AFTER THAT we will pay attention to the direction of the motion of the QUICKER moving body..

As a rule of thumb the nodes are normally slower than the 'inner planets' so as for me I consider the above rule appliable from SATURN onward to the outer planets....for they are slower than the nodes motion and of course the rule is to follow the direction of the quicker moving body thus the direction of the nodes are clockwise...

YET I thought for the inner planets (given the fact that they are quicker than the nodes) we consider the nodes as the 'fix point' thus the inner planets are approaching the nodes far quicker than the nodes are moving thus their OWN DIRECTION will be considered and applied in determining the phasal relationship...

In other words  simplifying the issue his is what I understood: starting from pluto and moving inward: all planets until saturn the ABOVE RULE that Adina quated applies, whereas, from jupiter inward (so the quicker moving planets EXCEPT THE SUN) the reference point will be the node so we don't need to worry about the nodes motion as the PLANET is quicker so the planets normal motion will determine the phase...

Rad, could you please clarify this?
Seems like it is FAR NOT just Pam who is confused about this!;D
You are RIGHT Adina, this does haunt us!! Shocked Grin

Many thanks!
Blessings,
Lia
 
« Last Edit: Oct 02, 2009, 01:31 AM by Lia » Logged
adina
Active Member
*
Posts: 234


« Reply #7 on: Oct 02, 2009, 07:57 AM »

Holy cow!  This is too funny!  My short-term memory sucks these days, but my long-term memory is still intact. (I think  Smiley) LOL  Anyway, long, long ago, in an EA galaxy far, far away, this same and lengthy discussion took place. AND the method to determine the phase to the nodes was being used and taught differently by different EAs. The whole issue was as confusing then as it seems to be now!  Shocked That's why there were so many questions asked about particular planets.

Since I was compiling the old Message Board posts into an EA Q&A book, I specifically asked Jeffrey before he retired, and he clarified the method as written in the last paragraph of my above post. I believe in THIS case, the method has more to do with the MEAN motion of the nodes, which is retrograde, rather than the speed of the planet, AND that if one wants to get REALLY technical, then you CAN calculate it differently IF the nodes are direct in the person's chart. However, I've found it works using the basic way.

However, as Richard Bach said at the end of his book, Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah, "Everything in this book may be wrong."   Grin
Logged
PamS
Active Member
*
Posts: 124


« Reply #8 on: Oct 02, 2009, 08:59 AM »

Thank You Adina and Lia,

When ever we talk about this boy it does get confusing... thank you both for you help with this...

[(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.
[/color]


This makes sense to me... with both these examples you start at the planet and move clockwise towards the node .... then we get the balsamic conjunction..... and with the second one you get new phase...

with the other aspects we start with the slower moving planet and move counter clockwise..

I know simple works better for me with this stuff, the only way I ever learned the resolution node was the idea that steve wrote on how mark said stand on the planet looking towards the chart and the planet on the left is the resolution node...

easy can be really ok sometimes...

thanks,


 pam

« Last Edit: Oct 02, 2009, 02:46 PM by PamS » Logged
Rad
Moderator
Most Active Member
*****
Posts: 19857


« Reply #9 on: Oct 02, 2009, 09:55 AM »

Hi Pam,


 "We always start with the SLOWER moving planet of the two planets or points being considered. And then in a clockwise direction determine the degrees of separation between the two. When using the nodes, because the mean motion is retrograde, the rule is reversed: using the slower moving point of the two you count in a counter-clockwise direction. When using the Sun the Sun is always the first point of reference."

im looking at a chart with a stellium in scorpio (not pluto) and the NN at 22 libra.... these planets are new phase with NN  in Libra correct?

************************************************************************

Yes.

Rad,

 you mean the opposite right?   What I was taught was that the slower moving planets you go counter-clockwise with the nodes you move clockwise...,  You are telling me in your previous response that I was correct, but at the same time I was doing it backwards...

could you please clarity... This is such a funny point to get clear with....

thank you,
Pam


 Yes, the opposite ........eek. LET'S ALL PRAISE SIMPLE NOW .............

 Rad
Logged
PamS
Active Member
*
Posts: 124


« Reply #10 on: Oct 02, 2009, 02:48 PM »

Merci!

blessings,

pam
Logged
Lia
Active Member
*
Posts: 135


« Reply #11 on: Oct 02, 2009, 04:49 PM »

Hi Rad and All,

Sorry to nag more about this but I really would like to understand the reason/ theory behind it...
also would like to undertand if what I understood was not correct....? I.e. considering the speed of the planet/body and than relative to that counting with the motion (direction) of the quicker moving object TOWARDS the point where the slower moving is standing as the reference point.....

Let me explain why I ask this: there are cases when this doesn't make any difference and yet there are cases when it DOES.

I.e.: if moon is 2 degrees cancer and n.node is at 4 degrees cancer this would be a balsamic conj. No matter which way we see it, it is. So no differnce here. (Reason being: both bodies are approaching the other relative to their OWN motion. However it was my understanding what we actually consider is the moon, which is the quicker moving thus the moon is approaching the node)

When pluto would be on 2 cancer it is the node that is quicker (so now it does matter that node’s motion is retro) which is approaching to pluto. Of course it is STILL balsamic and yet for a different reason than above with moon.. Yet it does not make any difference regarding the result: the phasal relationship is still balsamic for both. (and I thought this can be one of the causes of the confusion to be honest)

BUT, when moon is at 29 cancer and let say s.node is 25 capr. it will make some difference which way we count this. For if we count according to the rule that Adina posted (i.e. counting clockwise whic equals to the nodes mean motion) from the slower moving (n.node) to the faster moving (moon) we gonna have a FULL PHASE opposition, yes? Yet if we follow the rule that the faster moving is applying towards the slower moving than we counting from moon to the node and that is still a gibbous opposition, hasn‘t yet riped to full phase. There is a difference between the nature of the opposition, in the first case it is something pretty much experienced already, while with the gibbous, it is yet to reach that full oppositon point.....

Meaning there are some evolutionary gates within the phases which would make a difference (again relative to my understanding) if we use one rule or the other....so that’s why I thought it was important although it is just a little detial....can you please clarify this Rad?

(Well, my virgo wants to know if something isn't right within my understanding and correct it....meanwhile my scorpio has a need to know exactly WHY  Grin)

Thanks and blessings,
Lia
Logged
PamS
Active Member
*
Posts: 124


« Reply #12 on: Oct 02, 2009, 05:52 PM »

Hi Lia,

yes thanks for bringing this up.. what about the SN .. per your querry

when moon is at 29 cancer and let say s.node is 25 capr. it will make some difference which way we count this. For if we count according to the rule that Adina posted (i.e. counting clockwise whic equals to the nodes mean motion) from the slower moving (n.node) to the faster moving (moon) we gonna have a FULL PHASE opposition, yes? Yet if we follow the rule that the faster moving is applying towards the slower moving than we counting from moon to the node and that is still a gibbous opposition, hasn‘t yet riped to full phase. There is a difference between the nature of the opposition, in the first case it is something pretty much experienced already, while with the gibbous, it is yet to reach that full oppositon point.....

ok im just talking here i want to know this too...by what adina posted and JWG would you start at the moon and move toward the node so would not the moon at 29 cancer be new phase to the NN at 29 cancer and the moon be a full phase opposition?  meaning Moon is 184 degrees to the SN at 25 Cap...

actually i think your question is much more specific than this.. per your examples you think that there is a difference between the planets before and after saturn right?

thanks,

pam


« Last Edit: Oct 02, 2009, 05:55 PM by PamS » Logged
ari moshe
Most Active Member
***
Posts: 1231


« Reply #13 on: Oct 02, 2009, 10:43 PM »

Thank you everyone for just being in question mode, i love this!

I'm not representing ea, this is just what makes sense to me...
I'm thinking about what planets are and what nodes are. Nodes are SOO different than planets- they are intersections between the orbital path of planets (the natural way in which a function of consciousness operates) and the ecliptic (the context of evolution in this solar system). So the nodal point of any planet represents how that function of consciousness has participated and is developing a new level of participation in the collective evolution of consciousness.

To me, this means that the node of any planet is a reference point to the entire chart, regardless of it's speed. This is because nodes do not operate in planetary phases like planets do to each other. Nodes are entry and exit points of consciousness. It is through the nodes that the planets find integration within an evolutionary process.

From that point of view, it makes sense of me to apply the same rule to all planetary nodal phases- to calculate the phase with the nodes as the fixed point. Thus simply start with the planet and go counter clockwise until you hit the first node. That is the integration node. I can see why this would be true even for all planets, slow and fast. To me, it's not about speed, it's about the nature and fucntion of planets and nodes.

However I wonder about the sun. The sun is the center of the ecliptic, so it may have a different status as it's the center of focus for all the evolution. The sun holds the space, is the container, is the insipration for evolution in the first place. The sun is not in the status of a planet nor in the status of a node- it's really it's own shindig. I would like to meditate more on the sun in this context. and I wonder what ya'll think about it...
Logged
Lia
Active Member
*
Posts: 135


« Reply #14 on: Oct 05, 2009, 04:57 AM »

Hi Pam,

Your last note made me rethink this whole technical issue all over again...thanks for that!
For eventually I've got it! Grin

It is indeed my confusion! The issue is not that if we consider the node or the planet as our starting point FOR IT TRULY DOESN'T MATTER. Gees...that's I think what confused most of us certainly it confused me.
Yes if we want to be technically totally correct we can consider one or the other relative to speed and it is true BUT it INDEED doesn't make any difference as to the degrees of separation. So that's the key.
It is correct what Adina quoted!  

I just never understood the reason WHY it doesn't matter UP UNTIL NOW!
So thanks Pam for bringing this up it made me realise the bones of this eventually.

The issue is that it DOES NOT MATTER which point we start because the direction of the planet and the node is OPPOSITE, therefore no matter WHERE FROM we measure the distance it will be the same. It is precisely because of the opposite motion relative to each other.

So before I further confuse anyone with this, let me try to put it in a different way:  
(Again what Adina quoted is totally correct! I'd just like to add my way of understanding it - for I have a need to understand the whys behind anything :-) so I thought for those who have the same need this may help)

What I came up with is the following:

If we are standing on the PLANET (looking towards the middle of the chart) and identify the exact opposite point to the planet and imagine a vertical line there, so we cut the circle into two halves, one is on the right side (from the planet) and one is on the left. We can imagine an arrow inside the circle anticlockwise as the direction of the planet and another opposite arrow outside of the circle clockwise as the movement/direction of the node. (This is just to help to understand the whys- it's not necessary though)

If the considered node falls into the right half circle (right side from the planet) the phase is full to balsamic so approaching; the two bodies are getting closer to each other. (The reason behind it for those who want to understand it will be clear if you look at the arrows that symbolise the movement: they are BOTH approaching each other therefore it doesn't matter which one we start the calculation with, that's the key! This is what confused me and perhaps others, but never mind the distance will be the same no matter where we measure it from between the two points. The rule is just that if the node falls into the right half circle you measure the distance WITHIN the right half circle. No matter where you start from and which direction you folloow: the distance will be the same degree either ways. Look at the arrows if you have confusion; they point TO each other. Meaning either the planet or the node is the slower= the fix point,  the distance will be still the same= the phase will be the same.)
 
If the node will fall to the left of the planet (so it falls into the left half circle) than the phase is SEPARATING = new to gibbous full phase. Again the rule is that no matter where the node falls within the left half circle and no matter which one is quicker or slower (no matter which one we consider as the fix point) we measure the distance between point A and point B  WITHIN the left half-circle. Doesn't matter which point we start with, the distance will be the same as long as it is measured within the left half circle. (Again the technical reasons can be followed by imagining the arrows that point to the directions of both bodies: they are both separating from each other. Therefore we have the same phase and same degree either we start from the planet as point A and follow its direction towards the node as point B, or we consider the node as point A and follow it's direction to the planet as point B.)

I never understood the above to be honest and got confused about the fact that I do know from Jeffrey that the speed does apply in considering any movement in the chart relaltive to phasal relationship. However it didn't occur to me that it does not make any difference in measuring the phase of the nodes because the opposite direction of the movements; that is no matter where we start the counting from it is always the same distance and the same phase. Cool

Well I hope this helps  - and gives the reasons for those who, like me, wanted to dig into the whys:-)  

Again sorry for my initial confusion, and thanks Pam so very much your question was indeed very useful; as for me it resulted in a big AHA at the end!
Thanks for that new dendrite Pam!!  Cheesy 


 Blessings,

Lia
« Last Edit: Oct 05, 2009, 09:38 AM by Lia » Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
Print
Jump to: