The quincunx is inconjunct!

[Kjell Pettersson]

It is time for me to bring up a pet peeve of mine; the quincunx.

This is what Wikipedia says about the quincunx:

"Quincunx — intermediate major/minor aspect
The quincunx (or inconjunct, abrv. Inc) is an angle of 150°, which is
five-twelfths of the 360° ecliptic. A separation of 150±2° is
considered a quincunx. The quincunx is said to be of moderate but
somewhat unpredictable influence, bringing strain. It indicates
difficulty and stress, due to incompatible elements being forced
together. It can mean an area of self neglect in a person's life
(especially health), or obligations being forced on a person. This
aspect is also sometimes called the inconjunct, though this usage is
technically incorrect. A quincunx is thought to be one of the most
difficult aspects to work with because it will not allow for retreat.
There’s no backing down when it comes to this aspect because you can’t
just think your way out of it, you have to take action on those
thoughts. The quincunx will challenge you to trust your own
intuition."

http://goo.gl/TpDv4

First I want to correct that the word "inconjunct" would be
technically incorrect. It is not. "Inconjunct" simply means—literally—
that the planets do not relate to one another, and that is as true for
the quincunx as for the 30-degree aspect (which often gets the name of
inconjunct). However, the trend is clear, inconjunct is rarely used
for the quincunx nowadays.

This "inconjunctness" is also the basis for how one should interpret
the aspect. Let us now look at what "aspect" means. That a planet
aspects another means that it "sees" it in some manner. In the case of
the inconjunct aspects (quincunx and 30-degree aspect) the planets do
not see one another. That is WHY they are inconjunct.

Now over to the pet peeve-ish part. For the above reason I think it is
wrong to include these aspects when making an interpretation, UNLESS a
certain criterium, are met. IF this criterium is met, then an
interpretation can be made. It is a very simple criterium.

The inconjunct "aspects" have an effect, sort of, first when there is
a planet that aspects both of the inconjuncts.

Example:
Sun 10 ARIES
Moon 10 VIRGO

These are in no relation whatsoever. However, if a planet would be at
10 GEMINI or 10 CANCER, for instance, then it would be in aspect with
both the Sun and the Moon. And THEN we may progress to interpret the
non-aspect, which is really a case of one planet having to deal with
two others that push and pull in different directions. This is what
makes the situation stressful for that planet.

That you need a planet that relates to both of the inconjuncts is also
why many interpretations, including the one from Wikipedia, speaks of
unpredictability. For all those who do not have a planet situated so
that it aspects both of the inconjuncts, this effect comes in play
only during transits or when they meet people with such a placement
(natally or progressed would not matter).

So. Pet peeve over and done with, finally. Phew! :-)

/Kjell

[CFA]

Post by Kjell Pettersson
It is time for me to bring up a pet peeve of mine; the quincunx.

...

Post by Kjell Pettersson
This "inconjunctness" is also the basis for how one should interpret
the aspect. Let us now look at what "aspect" means. That a planet
aspects another means that it "sees" it in some manner. In the case of
the inconjunct aspects (quincunx and 30-degree aspect) the planets do
not see one another. That is WHY they are inconjunct.

Hmm. Both inconjuncts are in a 30° (1/12th) harmonic, and harmonics
are the basis for aspects, as I understand them. And the 1/12th
harmonic is especially notable, as compared to, say, 1/5th.

The other tell would be to interview someone or ones who have
inconjuncts with no third planet in aspect.

I'm not saying you're wrong- it's just a fairly unorthodox point of
view.

Ken

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
It is time for me to bring up a pet peeve of mine; the quincunx.

 ...

Post by Kjell Pettersson
This "inconjunctness" is also the basis for how one should interpret
the aspect. Let us now look at what "aspect" means. That a planet
aspects another means that it "sees" it in some manner. In the case of
the inconjunct aspects (quincunx and 30-degree aspect) the planets do
not see one another. That is WHY they are inconjunct.

Hmm. Both inconjuncts are in a 30° (1/12th) harmonic, and harmonics
are the basis for aspects, as I understand them.

I think harmonics are important, *very* important actually, but the
idea of "aspect" did not originate with the idea of harmonics.
Harmonics is an invention of the last century. The 1/12th harmonic, as
I understand it, is about the twelve signs, dividing the tropical into
twelve equal parts. However, both dividing and multiplying at the same
time, which one would have to do to arrive at 150 degrees, is a
concept I myself do not believe will yield easily read results. I am
not against it in principle, as I think that everything that is
mathematically sound is possible to interpret, but in this case the
end result becomes too mixed up IMHO.

Post by CFA
And the 1/12th
harmonic is especially notable, as compared to, say, 1/5th.

In this respect I disagree, if we are speaking of aspects (not if we
are speaking of harmonics though, as the 12th harmonic is the basis of
the signs). Kepler noted that in addition to the old Ptolemaic aspects
the quintile was the only one that could be fitted into the 360-degree
circle without leaving fractions. Okay, the question might be whether
the 360-degree circle is special or just a human creation (I think it
is special, just as I think the base 10 numerical system is) as the
quintile would not fit as nicely into a 359-degree circle (horror of
horrors to think of such a thing tho!).

I think it would be extremely hard to generalize into an aspect
something that would fit to explain the difference between any sign
versus the one before OR after. That is would the 30-degree aspect
would amount to. The quincunx would certainly not be an easier shot.
It does, however, make sense to say that the sextile divides signs
into positive/masculine or negative/feminine. The essence of the
sextile can be grasped relatively easily, not so the 30- or 150-degree
aspect. But that may be me, perhaps others can do what I can not! :-)

Post by CFA
The other tell would be to interview someone or ones who have
inconjuncts with no third planet in aspect.

I think that is precisely what the 20th-century astrologers have done
to end up with the interpretation I quoted (I think the Wikipedia
quote is fairly much in line with contemporary consensus). But I think
that in re-interpreting the quincunx as an *aspect*, some things get
mixed up. For instance, the unpredictability mentioned in the
interpretation is not in the nature of either Virgo or Scorpio.

My explanation gives an understanding for why the "aspect" would be
unpredictable. For instance, if a person has a quincunx with no third
planet in aspect to the inconjuncts but meet someone with a position
there, they may well be triggered. And we certainly do not always know
the charts of those we meet, so this may seem very unpredictable to
us!

Post by CFA
I'm not saying you're wrong- it's just a fairly unorthodox point of
view.

Oh, thank you. Flattery always works with me! :-)

(Asc-ruler conjunct URA speaking.)

More seriously, I think it is true that my pov is unorthodox only
because the general consensus has accepted an idea regarding
interpretation of this aspect that has not been thought through.

/K

[CFA]

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
It is time for me to bring up a pet peeve of mine; the quincunx.

 ...

Post by Kjell Pettersson
This "inconjunctness" is also the basis for how one should interpret
the aspect. Let us now look at what "aspect" means. That a planet
aspects another means that it "sees" it in some manner. In the case of
the inconjunct aspects (quincunx and 30-degree aspect) the planets do
not see one another. That is WHY they are inconjunct.

Hmm. Both inconjuncts are in a 30° (1/12th) harmonic, and harmonics
are the basis for aspects, as I understand them.

I think harmonics are important, *very* important actually, but the
idea of "aspect" did not originate with the idea of harmonics.
Harmonics is an invention of the last century. The 1/12th harmonic, as
I understand it, is about the twelve signs, dividing the tropical into
twelve equal parts. However, both dividing and multiplying at the same
time, which one would have to do to arrive at 150 degrees, is a
concept I myself do not believe will yield easily read results. I am
not against it in principle, as I think that everything that is
mathematically sound is possible to interpret, but in this case the
end result becomes too mixed up IMHO.

It's the same process to arrive at the square, opposition, etc, so
that part's the same. And the strongest aspects come from that
formula, though they're 1/2 or 1/4 harmonics first...

But the inconjunct absolutely works for me, if only in comparing
signs. How would you represent, for instance, the match or lack
thereof between Aries and Scorpio or Aries and Virgo?

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
And the 1/12th
harmonic is especially notable, as compared to, say, 1/5th.

In this respect I disagree, if we are speaking of aspects (not if we
are speaking of harmonics though, as the 12th harmonic is the basis of
the signs). Kepler noted that in addition to the old Ptolemaic aspects
the quintile was the only one that could be fitted into the 360-degree
circle without leaving fractions. Okay, the question might be whether
the 360-degree circle is special or just a human creation (I think it
is special, just as I think the base 10 numerical system is) as the
quintile would not fit as nicely into a 359-degree circle (horror of
horrors to think of such a thing tho!).
I think it would be extremely hard to generalize into an aspect
something that would fit to explain the difference between any sign
versus the one before OR after. That is would the 30-degree aspect
would amount to. The quincunx would certainly not be an easier shot.

Well, I did just sorta talk about that. And it exists- a kind of
tension between adjacent signs, for instance. In fact, that might be
the greatest kind of difference that exists, more than even squares
and oppositions. Think about it - very little in common - not mode,
element, or gender...

Post by Kjell Pettersson
It does, however, make sense to say that the sextile divides signs
into positive/masculine or negative/feminine. The essence of the
sextile can be grasped relatively easily, not so the 30- or 150-degree
aspect. But that may be me, perhaps others can do what I can not! :-)

That to me does more or less represent those two aspects- like two
hands attempting to clap and never touching. The square and opposition
work partly because there are connections or similarities being worked
from opposite ends of the same scale. Aries and Libra are masculine
and cardinal, with very different expressions, etc. Aries and Taurus,
on the other hand, live in different galaxies.

Also consider the yod.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
The other tell would be to interview someone or ones who have
inconjuncts with no third planet in aspect.

I think that is precisely what the 20th-century astrologers have done
to end up with the interpretation I quoted (I think the Wikipedia
quote is fairly much in line with contemporary consensus). But I think
that in re-interpreting the quincunx as an *aspect*, some things get
mixed up. For instance, the unpredictability mentioned in the
interpretation is not in the nature of either Virgo or Scorpio.

I'm not finding your reference on Wikipedia.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
My explanation gives an understanding for why the "aspect" would be
unpredictable. For instance, if a person has a quincunx with no third
planet in aspect to the inconjuncts but meet someone with a position
there, they may well be triggered. And we certainly do not always know
the charts of those we meet, so this may seem very unpredictable to
us!

Post by CFA
I'm not saying you're wrong- it's just a fairly unorthodox point of
view.

Oh, thank you. Flattery always works with me! :-)
(Asc-ruler conjunct URA speaking.)
More seriously, I think it is true that my pov is unorthodox only
because the general consensus has accepted an idea regarding
interpretation of this aspect that has not been thought through.

Something like the Aries/Virgo clash embodies it to me.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
/K

Ken

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
The 1/12th harmonic, as
I understand it, is about the twelve signs, dividing the tropical into
twelve equal parts. However, both dividing and multiplying at the same
time, which one would have to do to arrive at 150 degrees, is a
concept I myself do not believe will yield easily read results. I am
not against it in principle, as I think that everything that is
mathematically sound is possible to interpret, but in this case the
end result becomes too mixed up IMHO.

It's the same process to arrive at the square, opposition, etc, so
that part's the same. And the strongest aspects come from that
formula, though they're 1/2 or 1/4 harmonics first...

I would not call them harmonics, but ratios. It may seem nitpicky, but
I think there is a difference. The square is one fourth, the
opposition one half. These are fractions that are "whole", as opposed
to one seventh, which is a very "fractured" fraction. The word
"ratio", in turn, is related to words like rational and rationality.
There is nothing wrong whatsoever with harmonics, but they are another
thing entirely, IMO.

The whole idea goes back to Pythagorean numerology, where "impossible"
numbers such as the square root of two were shunned.

The 150-degree aspect would be 5/12, or circa 0.41666... That would
not be considered a nice and well-behaved fraction. It doesn't add up
to one easily, like 0.333... would. They were big on whole number
ratios, the ancients, and I think (though this may be a matter of
debate) that the Pythagorean cosmological understanding forms a great
part of what became astrology, at least in the Western world.

I should confess that my mathematical understanding of this topic is
not as thorough as I would want it to be, but I do think that the
above somewhat describes the essentials.

Post by CFA
But the inconjunct absolutely works for me, if only in comparing
signs. How would you represent, for instance, the match or lack
thereof between Aries and Scorpio or Aries and Virgo?

I would say that this match is too hard to capture in an aspect. The
difference between Aries and Virgo would be the same as that between
Gemini and Scorpio. Or between Virgo and Aquarius. To me these various
differences cannot be boiled down to one single description, even less
so if we take the other 21 differences.

[---]

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
I think it would be extremely hard to generalize into an aspect
something that would fit to explain the difference between any sign
versus the one before OR after. That is would the 30-degree aspect
would amount to. The quincunx would certainly not be an easier shot.

Well, I did just sorta talk about that. And it exists- a kind of
tension between adjacent signs, for instance. In fact, that might be
the greatest kind of difference that exists, more than even squares
and oppositions. Think about it - very little in common - not mode,
element, or gender...

I am certainly not saying that such a difference does not exist! What
I am saying is that it is not ONE difference, easily summed up into a
concept, but a multitude of divergent differences. For both the 30-
degree and the 150-degree aspect you have 24 combinations each that
you have to sum up and make a conclusive statement about.

If we take the opposition, there are twelve combinations. Not a big
difference in numbers, but a big difference in how easy they are to
conceptualise. Every opposition is about the duality that is in either
positive or negative signs. Earth versus water or fire versus air.

The sextile is similarly easy to understand.

But the 30/150-degree aspects are more or less how everything relates
to everything else. It's too complex.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
It does, however, make sense to say that the sextile divides signs
into positive/masculine or negative/feminine. The essence of the
sextile can be grasped relatively easily, not so the 30- or 150-degree
aspect. But that may be me, perhaps others can do what I can not! :-)

That to me does more or less represent those two aspects- like two
hands attempting to clap and never touching. The square and opposition
work partly because there are connections or similarities being worked
from opposite ends of the same scale. Aries and Libra are masculine
and cardinal, with very different expressions, etc. Aries and Taurus,
on the other hand, live in different galaxies.

Again, I am not saying there is no difference. I should not even say
it could not be summarized. But I think it is too complex, and so
would have to be incredibly watered down to become shorthand, becoming
unintelligible in the process. I also think the good ol' Pythagorean
Weltanschaung has got something to it. The trines, squares and
oppositions are very, very basic units. The sextile less so, but still
within the realm of the understandable.

Post by CFA
Also consider the yod.

In my perception the yod is a midpoint picture rather than an aspect
configuration. Even before I arrived at my present understanding of
the inconjunct so called aspects, I never found it a stringent
concept.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
The other tell would be to interview someone or ones who have
inconjuncts with no third planet in aspect.

I think that is precisely what the 20th-century astrologers have done
to end up with the interpretation I quoted (I think the Wikipedia
quote is fairly much in line with contemporary consensus). But I think
that in re-interpreting the quincunx as an *aspect*, some things get
mixed up. For instance, the unpredictability mentioned in the
interpretation is not in the nature of either Virgo or Scorpio.

I'm not finding your reference on Wikipedia.

I''ll give a proper link instead of a shortened and hopefully that
will work better!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_aspect#Quincunx_.E2.80.94_intermediate_major.2Fminor_aspect

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
More seriously, I think it is true that my pov is unorthodox only
because the general consensus has accepted an idea regarding
interpretation of this aspect that has not been thought through.

Something like the Aries/Virgo clash embodies it to me.

To me, Aries/Virgo does not sum it all up. Aries/Virgo does not
contain the Gemini/Scorpio difference, nor the Virgo/Aquarius
difference, and not the Cancer/Sag either. Etc. It is a shorthand that
works only for one particular example, not for the entire class it
should describe.

It becomes incomprehensible to try and grasp all these variations in
one aspect. To me anyhows! :-)

/Kjell

[CFA]

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
But the inconjunct absolutely works for me, if only in comparing
signs. How would you represent, for instance, the match or lack
thereof between Aries and Scorpio or Aries and Virgo?

I would say that this match is too hard to capture in an aspect. The
difference between Aries and Virgo would be the same as that between
Gemini and Scorpio. Or between Virgo and Aquarius. To me these various
differences cannot be boiled down to one single description, even less
so if we take the other 21 differences.

I'd say the same dilemma applies to squares or oppositions. There
'should' be no way one description can apply to the possible number of
interpretations, and indeed it doesn't. It's only a starting point, as
is the definition of any other aspect. Planets, signs, and houses add
additional meanings.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
[---]

Post by CFA
Also consider the yod.

In my perception the yod is a midpoint picture rather than an aspect
configuration.

Though its definition is a fairly precise combination of three rather
tight aspects.

Ken

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
The
difference between Aries and Virgo would be the same as that between
Gemini and Scorpio. Or between Virgo and Aquarius. To me these various
differences cannot be boiled down to one single description, even less
so if we take the other 21 differences.

I'd say the same dilemma applies to squares or oppositions. There
'should' be no way one description can apply to the possible number of
interpretations, and indeed it doesn't. It's only a starting point, as
is the definition of any other aspect. Planets, signs, and houses add
additional meanings.

A *similar* dilemma exists with squares and oppositions, but it is not
the same. They are not as complex. Let's take squares and look at the
difference.

A square is about two positions being at cross-purposes with one
another. One position is positive/masculine, one negative/feminine.
However, they will both be cardinal, or fixed, or mutable. That is the
level of complexity.

A 30-degree aspect, on the other hand, is more complex. You have,
again, one position positive/masculine, the other negative/feminine.
No difference so far. But in the next step you see that not only is
the possible variations different from the starting point, they are
also different from one another.

If we look at Aries as the eternal example, with a square we have
Capricorn or Cancer. We end up with fire against a negative sign. We
can "subtract" or "divide away" with cardinality, as that is no
difference. The cardinality itself is not part of the problem that the
square presents. And it is the same for every square, mutability is
not a problem for squares between mutable signs, nor inflexibility for
squares between fixed signs.

With a 30-degree aspect, though, we will have Pisces or Taurus against
Aries. That gives fire against a negative sign, again, but it will
also be cardinal versus mutable OR fixed. This difference, that cannot
be discarded, is also different from the differences that other signs
have versus their neighbours. The differences Aries has to deal with
are basically different than the ones Taurus has to deal with, and for
every new sign we consider, it adds up even more. Not so when we
compare squares.

Back to my earlier conclusion: the classical, Ptolemaic, aspects are
less complex.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
In my perception the yod is a midpoint picture rather than an aspect
configuration.

Though its definition is a fairly precise combination of three rather
tight aspects.

But then again, the yod is just a newly invented thing as the idea of
the quincunx being an aspect. The only reason a yod has an effect upon
anything is that it is a midpoint picture. The sextile would not have
an effect upon the third position were it not for this.

/Kjell

[David Hecht]

The quincunx and the semi-sextile introduce a strong element of
inconvenience to the effort to interpret the reality. Is the world not
laden with inconveniences? Would it be objective to ignore this?

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by David Hecht
The quincunx and the semi-sextile introduce a strong element of
inconvenience to the effort to interpret the reality. Is the world not
laden with inconveniences? Would it be objective to ignore this?

I do not see that inconveniences must be explained in this particular
way, that is, as being due to these two being aspects in the usual
sense of the word.

Yesterday Jup at 2 TAU and Ura at 2 ARI were 30 degrees apart. I don't
think that had any particular influence on anyone unless they had a
third position aspecting both of these, or the midpoint.

Anyhow, my idea was not to convert everyone else to my opinion, but I
want to awaken the idea that there could be another way of looking at
the inconjuncts. Others may start to look into this also, and—if I am
right—in the long run evidence will start to pile up.

/Kjell

[Kjell Pettersson]

I just found a blog (Chris Brennan is the name of the astrologer
behind the blogging) that writes something very similar to what I
think about the quincunx!

http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2010/07/26/the-importance-of-yods-in-astrology/

He even shares my perception of the yod as a midpoint picture. He must
be a very nice and intelligent guy! ;-)

However, it seems that I erred somewhat in describing history.
According to Chris Brennan, Kepler was the one to introduce the
quincunx, which I was not at all aware of. I thought it was a later
invention.

Not that one voice agreeing with me proves anything, but I wanted to
give the link to his site as I think his presentation of the matter
was a good one, short and to the point.

/Kjell

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
The
difference between Aries and Virgo would be the same as that between
Gemini and Scorpio. Or between Virgo and Aquarius. To me these various
differences cannot be boiled down to one single description, even less
so if we take the other 21 differences.

I'd say the same dilemma applies to squares or oppositions. There
'should' be no way one description can apply to the possible number of
interpretations, and indeed it doesn't. It's only a starting point, as
is the definition of any other aspect. Planets, signs, and houses add
additional meanings.

A *similar* dilemma exists with squares and oppositions, but it is not
the same. They are not as complex. Let's take squares and look at the
difference.
A square is about two positions being at cross-purposes with one
another. One position is positive/masculine, one negative/feminine.
However, they will both be cardinal, or fixed, or mutable. That is the
level of complexity.
A 30-degree aspect, on the other hand, is more complex. You have,
again, one position positive/masculine, the other negative/feminine.
No difference so far. But in the next step you see that not only is
the possible variations different from the starting point, they are
also different from one another.
If we look at Aries as the eternal example, with a square we have
Capricorn or Cancer. We end up with fire against a negative sign. We
can "subtract" or "divide away" with cardinality, as that is no
difference. The cardinality itself is not part of the problem that the
square presents. And it is the same for every square, mutability is
not a problem for squares between mutable signs, nor inflexibility for
squares between fixed signs.
With a 30-degree aspect, though, we will have Pisces or Taurus against
Aries. That gives fire against a negative sign, again, but it will
also be cardinal versus mutable OR fixed. This difference, that cannot
be discarded, is also different from the differences that other signs
have versus their neighbours. The differences Aries has to deal with
are basically different than the ones Taurus has to deal with, and for
every new sign we consider, it adds up even more. Not so when we
compare squares.
Back to my earlier conclusion: the classical, Ptolemaic, aspects are
less complex.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
In my perception the yod is a midpoint picture rather than an aspect
configuration.

Though its definition is a fairly precise combination of three rather
tight aspects.

But then again, the yod is just a newly invented thing as the idea of
the quincunx being an aspect. The only reason a yod has an effect upon
anything is that it is a midpoint picture. The sextile would not have
an effect upon the third position were it not for this.
/Kjell

[CFA]

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
The
difference between Aries and Virgo would be the same as that between
Gemini and Scorpio. Or between Virgo and Aquarius. To me these various
differences cannot be boiled down to one single description, even less
so if we take the other 21 differences.

I'd say the same dilemma applies to squares or oppositions. There
'should' be no way one description can apply to the possible number of
interpretations, and indeed it doesn't. It's only a starting point, as
is the definition of any other aspect. Planets, signs, and houses add
additional meanings.

A *similar* dilemma exists with squares and oppositions, but it is not
the same. They are not as complex. Let's take squares and look at the
difference.
A square is about two positions being at cross-purposes with one
another. One position is positive/masculine, one negative/feminine.
However, they will both be cardinal, or fixed, or mutable. That is the
level of complexity.
A 30-degree aspect, on the other hand, is more complex. You have,
again, one position positive/masculine, the other negative/feminine.
No difference so far. But in the next step you see that not only is
the possible variations different from the starting point, they are
also different from one another.
If we look at Aries as the eternal example, with a square we have
Capricorn or Cancer. We end up with fire against a negative sign. We
can "subtract" or "divide away" with cardinality, as that is no
difference. The cardinality itself is not part of the problem that the
square presents. And it is the same for every square, mutability is
not a problem for squares between mutable signs, nor inflexibility for
squares between fixed signs.
With a 30-degree aspect, though, we will have Pisces or Taurus against
Aries. That gives fire against a negative sign, again, but it will
also be cardinal versus mutable OR fixed. This difference, that cannot
be discarded, is also different from the differences that other signs
have versus their neighbours. The differences Aries has to deal with
are basically different than the ones Taurus has to deal with, and for
every new sign we consider, it adds up even more. Not so when we
compare squares.

In my mind, that's even more reason to consider the minor aspect might
have some merit- differences not just in element and/or gender, but
also in mode. When all three variables at odds, doesn't that suggest
some kind of friction when planets are forced into interaction (by the
1/12th or 5/12th aspect)?

The other possibility of that, of course, is no connection at all
(planets not relating to each other) , which would suggest... no
connection at all :-) That's theoretically true with any part of
astrology, though, perhaps more true of a weaker aspect like this one.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Back to my earlier conclusion: the classical, Ptolemaic, aspects are
less complex.

Yes, they are. I'd give the inconjunct the same power I would any
other aspect whose lowest division of the wheel is 1/12th. The bigger
the lower number in that fraction, the weaker the aspect. So I'm not
saying it's very important. I'm just saying I believe it does have
some importance. Lacking any stronger connecting aspect, it might
actually be observable in real life.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
In my perception the yod is a midpoint picture rather than an aspect
configuration.

Though its definition is a fairly precise combination of three rather
tight aspects.

But then again, the yod is just a newly invented thing as the idea of
the quincunx being an aspect. The only reason a yod has an effect upon
anything is that it is a midpoint picture. The sextile would not have
an effect upon the third position were it not for this.
/Kjell

Ken

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
With a 30-degree aspect, though, we will have Pisces or Taurus against
Aries. That gives fire against a negative sign, again, but it will
also be cardinal versus mutable OR fixed. This difference, that cannot
be discarded, is also different from the differences that other signs
have versus their neighbours. The differences Aries has to deal with
are basically different than the ones Taurus has to deal with, and for
every new sign we consider, it adds up even more. Not so when we
compare squares.

In my mind, that's even more reason to consider the minor aspect might
have some merit- differences not just in element and/or gender, but
also in mode. When all three variables at odds, doesn't that suggest
some kind of friction when planets are forced into interaction (by the
1/12th or 5/12th aspect)?

I do not see the 1/12 or 5/12 as forcing into action in any way. And I
still believe that it is not possible to boil down all these various
combinations into one intelligible aspect.

To get these planets to interact, you need a third party they both
relate to. And they will interact differently with that third party.
Poor third party! :-)

But they are never directly acting with one another.

Post by CFA
The other possibility of that, of course, is no connection at all
(planets not relating to each other) , which would suggest... no
connection at all :-) That's theoretically true with any part of
astrology, though, perhaps more true of a weaker aspect like this one.

I think planets can be said to interact (in a birth chart, whether
they do so "up there" seems less likely), and that in certain
configurations they are more or less likely to do so. The trine's
association with stability seems natural to me. Any object resting
upon two points will be extremely vulnerable to changes in balance,
but add a third point with all points at equal distance and balance is
achieved. Put that third point so that you get the object resting upon
a "T-square" and again the object will be prone to loose balance.

Perhaps analogies with the real world cannot be taken too far (I would
not know what to say about sextiles), but it seems to me they rather
agree than disagree with out conception of aspects.

And perhaps we should not say "interact" but find another word, but
anyhow.

The analogy with resting points and balance seems to me to be not all
haphazard. I think it relates to the different geometrical forms that
could be said to be involved. But I think that is true only at a very
basic level. There will be no major difference in balance between an
object resting upon twelve evenly distributed points compared to one
resting upon thirteen evenly distributed points. There *will* be
distinct differences, in very particular situations, but these
situations will be so few and far between that it will be meaningless
to make any generalizations based upon them.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Back to my earlier conclusion: the classical, Ptolemaic, aspects are
less complex.

Yes, they are. I'd give the inconjunct the same power I would any
other aspect whose lowest division of the wheel is 1/12th. The bigger
the lower number in that fraction, the weaker the aspect. So I'm not
saying it's very important. I'm just saying I believe it does have
some importance. Lacking any stronger connecting aspect, it might
actually be observable in real life.

I agree that the aspect (word used reluctantly!) is not completely
without effect, but I think the effect is the one I have pointed to
earlier: due to interaction with third points. Of itself it is
powerless, or too insignificant (and complex on that) to be possible
to interpret.

Having declared my opposition to the inconjunct aspects I should say
that IF and WHEN a third point is present, I do not believe them to be
ineffectual at all! On the contrary.

In situations when a third point is involved, one of the original
parts will be stressed by it and that stress will, via the third
point, be distributed to the other original part. That could be very
productive.

/Kjell

[~^.Saba Gracile.^~]

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
With a 30-degree aspect, though, we will have Pisces or Taurus against
Aries. That gives fire against a negative sign, again, but it will
also be cardinal versus mutable OR fixed. This difference, that cannot
be discarded, is also different from the differences that other signs
have versus their neighbours. The differences Aries has to deal with
are basically different than the ones Taurus has to deal with, and for
every new sign we consider, it adds up even more. Not so when we
compare squares.

In my mind, that's even more reason to consider the minor aspect might
have some merit- differences not just in element and/or gender, but
also in mode. When all three variables at odds, doesn't that suggest
some kind of friction when planets are forced into interaction (by the
1/12th or 5/12th aspect)?

I do not see the 1/12 or 5/12 as forcing into action in any way. And I
still believe that it is not possible to boil down all these various
combinations into one intelligible aspect.
To get these planets to interact, you need a third party they both
relate to. And they will interact differently with that third party.
Poor third party! :-)
But they are never directly acting with one another.

What I think is you see that more than two contacts (no matter what
aspect) is effective. I mean why wouldn't they. 150 degrees are an
off kilter but noticeable just as much as a trine, even more so as trine
is almost under the radar because its so easy flowing and harmonic
in its effect. I mean, the planets in trine don't have any real friction.
I don't really have to discuss it because I've seen the effect of quinkunx
with just one planet. It shows very much a talent if in a natal chart,
but with another planet you get so much more effect and giftedness,
it lives a life ot its own. But two planets in aspect don't need a third
to be real, only if you add another one (and more) you get a whole
symphony of talent or linkages, because it is a configuration.
Why make it so complicated, of course one quinkunx is effective,
if you add more it goes into full blown configuration which is a living
entity in real life, not just an effect (if you can discern those).

V

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
The other possibility of that, of course, is no connection at all
(planets not relating to each other) , which would suggest... no
connection at all :-) That's theoretically true with any part of
astrology, though, perhaps more true of a weaker aspect like this one.

I think planets can be said to interact (in a birth chart, whether
they do so "up there" seems less likely), and that in certain
configurations they are more or less likely to do so. The trine's
association with stability seems natural to me. Any object resting
upon two points will be extremely vulnerable to changes in balance,
but add a third point with all points at equal distance and balance is
achieved. Put that third point so that you get the object resting upon
a "T-square" and again the object will be prone to loose balance.
Perhaps analogies with the real world cannot be taken too far (I would
not know what to say about sextiles), but it seems to me they rather
agree than disagree with out conception of aspects.
And perhaps we should not say "interact" but find another word, but
anyhow.
The analogy with resting points and balance seems to me to be not all
haphazard. I think it relates to the different geometrical forms that
could be said to be involved. But I think that is true only at a very
basic level. There will be no major difference in balance between an
object resting upon twelve evenly distributed points compared to one
resting upon thirteen evenly distributed points. There *will* be
distinct differences, in very particular situations, but these
situations will be so few and far between that it will be meaningless
to make any generalizations based upon them.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Back to my earlier conclusion: the classical, Ptolemaic, aspects are
less complex.

Yes, they are. I'd give the inconjunct the same power I would any
other aspect whose lowest division of the wheel is 1/12th. The bigger
the lower number in that fraction, the weaker the aspect. So I'm not
saying it's very important. I'm just saying I believe it does have
some importance. Lacking any stronger connecting aspect, it might
actually be observable in real life.

I agree that the aspect (word used reluctantly!) is not completely
without effect, but I think the effect is the one I have pointed to
earlier: due to interaction with third points. Of itself it is
powerless, or too insignificant (and complex on that) to be possible
to interpret.
Having declared my opposition to the inconjunct aspects I should say
that IF and WHEN a third point is present, I do not believe them to be
ineffectual at all! On the contrary.
In situations when a third point is involved, one of the original
parts will be stressed by it and that stress will, via the third
point, be distributed to the other original part. That could be very
productive.
/Kjell

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by ~^.Saba Gracile.^~

Post by Kjell Pettersson
I do not see the 1/12 or 5/12 as forcing into action in any way. And I
still believe that it is not possible to boil down all these various
combinations into one intelligible aspect.
To get these planets to interact, you need a third party they both
relate to. And they will interact differently with that third party.
Poor third party! :-)
But they are never directly acting with one another.

What I think is you see that more than two contacts (no matter what
aspect) is effective. I mean why wouldn't they. 150 degrees are an
off kilter but noticeable just as much as a trine, even more so as trine
is almost under the radar because its so easy flowing and harmonic
in its effect. I mean, the planets in trine don't have any real friction.

I'm not certain I follow. Personally I do not find the quincunx
noticeable, never did. But the case for this may of course be that I
don't understand it. It's hard to see what you don't understand.

Trines, OTOH, I can relate too. Friction is not the only thing that
makes me observe things, with trines I can note the extreme ease (the
non-friction!) that is shown. Taking my own chart, for instance, some
experiences I've had would not be possible to explain without my water
trines. And sometimes it seems to me they help me to identify similar
things in others, though that may be my imagination. (Or my inner
skeptic!)

Post by ~^.Saba Gracile.^~
I don't really have to discuss it because I've seen the effect of quinkunx
with just one planet. It shows very much a talent if in a natal chart,
but with another planet you get so much more effect and giftedness,
it lives a life ot its own. But two planets in aspect don't need a third
to be real, only if you add another one (and more) you get a whole
symphony of talent or linkages, because it is a configuration.

I agree that any two planets in aspect do not need a third to become
visible. The very question I posed, however, was whether or not
planets in quincunx could be said to BE in aspect.

If you have an experience that tells you that you find these aspects
to be working and can identify them when they occur, I cannot argue
with that. All I can say is that I do not share that experience, and I
cannot find the theoretical grounds for how to find it either. I guess
it would be easier for me to believe in if I believed that I was
looking for something really there.

Then again, skeptics could use practically the same argument against
me but substitute ”quincunx” with ”astrology”, so I am not saying the
argument is something for someone ELSE to respect. But it does affect
how *I* function.

Post by ~^.Saba Gracile.^~
Why make it so complicated, of course one quinkunx is effective,

I don't get the ”of course”.

Post by ~^.Saba Gracile.^~
if you add more it goes into full blown configuration which is a living
entity in real life, not just an effect (if you can discern those).

I don't understand this. Are you saying that configurations in a chart
represent independent living entities apart from the chart holder?
Forgive me if I am thick, but remember English is not my native
language.

/K

[~^.Saba Gracile.^~]

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by ~^.Saba Gracile.^~

Post by Kjell Pettersson
I do not see the 1/12 or 5/12 as forcing into action in any way. And I
still believe that it is not possible to boil down all these various
combinations into one intelligible aspect.
To get these planets to interact, you need a third party they both
relate to. And they will interact differently with that third party.
Poor third party! :-)
But they are never directly acting with one another.

What I think is you see that more than two contacts (no matter what
aspect) is effective. I mean why wouldn't they. 150 degrees are an
off kilter but noticeable just as much as a trine, even more so as trine
is almost under the radar because its so easy flowing and harmonic
in its effect. I mean, the planets in trine don't have any real friction.

I'm not certain I follow. Personally I do not find the quincunx
noticeable, never did. But the case for this may of course be that I
don't understand it. It's hard to see what you don't understand.

I know it's not easy for me either because it repels into something
else, dissapoints a little. But creativity can come from the way it doesn't
just fall into place.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Trines, OTOH, I can relate too. Friction is not the only thing that
makes me observe things, with trines I can note the extreme ease (the
non-friction!) that is shown. Taking my own chart, for instance, some
experiences I've had would not be possible to explain without my water
trines. And sometimes it seems to me they help me to identify similar
things in others, though that may be my imagination. (Or my inner
skeptic!)

Trines are real blessings not just a cliché but true gifts to a person.
U have great ease with empathy then I guess with the water trines.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by ~^.Saba Gracile.^~
I don't really have to discuss it because I've seen the effect of quinkunx
with just one planet. It shows very much a talent if in a natal chart,
but with another planet you get so much more effect and giftedness,
it lives a life ot its own. But two planets in aspect don't need a third
to be real, only if you add another one (and more) you get a whole
symphony of talent or linkages, because it is a configuration.

I agree that any two planets in aspect do not need a third to become
visible. The very question I posed, however, was whether or not
planets in quincunx could be said to BE in aspect.

Ok yes the aspect is there but the results are off norm so like chasing
a ghost it can be hard to pin down. If it involves service, health or power
or some other 6th or 8th house theme then it will be more visible.
I have seen that with the sun signs in quincunx to my sun. Never really
get eachother but on some level we tune in like if there's grief or
mishap or something then we relate more. Humour is good cause of
the weirdness of the connection and our thoughts.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
If you have an experience that tells you that you find these aspects
to be working and can identify them when they occur, I cannot argue
with that. All I can say is that I do not share that experience, and I
cannot find the theoretical grounds for how to find it either. I guess
it would be easier for me to believe in if I believed that I was
looking for something really there.
Then again, skeptics could use practically the same argument against
me but substitute "quincunx" with "astrology", so I am not saying the
argument is something for someone ELSE to respect. But it does affect
how *I* function.

Maybe all degrees have an aspect but the main ones are selected with
good reason, and this aspect is well represented by now. Examples of how
aspects can react is here:
http://cafeastrology.com/natal/quincunxinterpretations.html

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by ~^.Saba Gracile.^~
Why make it so complicated, of course one quinkunx is effective,

I don't get the "of course".

A little blunt of me I guess I was thinking that it was well established
empirically. Not easy to find some proof of something that creates
misunderstandings like that aspect does. Could be that simple.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by ~^.Saba Gracile.^~
if you add more it goes into full blown configuration which is a living
entity in real life, not just an effect (if you can discern those).

I don't understand this. Are you saying that configurations in a chart
represent independent living entities apart from the chart holder?
Forgive me if I am thick, but remember English is not my native
language.

Yes everything out there, feelings and things like real or unreal love
already exist in the plane that we're mirroring down here. The planets
explains how these are real things in our lives. If you have a configuration
that those planets spells out, then it is a true and real ability or thing
you
have that you took from the universe (everything is already there, planets
make it manifested). I believe this anyway, the symbolic world came first,
God created by word and that means something existed before it, that
are not material. So these things are reflected in the planets.

V

Post by Kjell Pettersson
/K

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by ~^.Saba Gracile.^~
Trines are real blessings not just a cliché but true gifts to a person.
U have great ease with empathy then I guess with the water trines.

They seem to be primarily about intuition, empathy in the common sense
seems not to be what they are about. Strangely enough, but I guess
they can only express what the rest of the chart allows.

But writing ”what the chart allows” also makes me think of that my
chart does not contain any quincunxes. Perhaps it is that simple. I
don't get what I can't identify with or find in myself. It would not
be flattering, but it could be true! :-)

Post by ~^.Saba Gracile.^~
Ok yes the aspect is there but the results are off norm so like chasing
a ghost it can be hard to pin down. If it involves service, health or power
or some other 6th or 8th house theme then it will be more visible.
I have seen that with the sun signs in quincunx to my sun. Never really
get eachother but on some level we tune in like if there's grief or
mishap or something then we relate more. Humour is good cause of
the weirdness of the connection and our thoughts.

Hmm. I am hopeless, still no bells ringing! :-)

Post by ~^.Saba Gracile.^~
Maybe all degrees have an aspect

This I actually believe and think makes sense. Perhaps it will be
easier for me to understand what others describe in the quincunx if I
choose this perspective.

Post by ~^.Saba Gracile.^~
but the main ones are selected with
good reason, and this aspect is well represented by now. Examples of how
aspects can react is here:http://cafeastrology.com/natal/quincunxinterpretations.html

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by ~^.Saba Gracile.^~
if you add more it goes into full blown configuration which is a living
entity in real life, not just an effect (if you can discern those).

I don't understand this. Are you saying that configurations in a chart
represent independent living entities apart from the chart holder?
Forgive me if I am thick, but remember English is not my native
language.

Yes everything out there, feelings and things like real or unreal love
already exist in the plane that we're mirroring down here. The planets
explains how these are real things in our lives. If you have a configuration
 that those planets spells out, then it is a true and real ability or thing
you
have that you took from the universe (everything is already there, planets
make it manifested). I believe this anyway, the symbolic world came first,
God created by word and that means something existed before it, that
are not material. So these things are reflected in the planets.

OK, now I am with you. I think similarly, but express it differently.

/Kjell