Post by glaucus on Apr 14, 2019 21:03:08 GMT
In Jim Eshelman's Solunars Sidereal Astrology forum,
Western Sidereal Astrologer UncleAries expressed his idea to look at fixed stars in Prime Vertical which is referred to as Mundoscope.
He typed the following:
Possible solution to fixed stars in astrology
What if i told you i found a way how to properly (pending statistical confirmation) delineate fixed stars not just for the angles but planets as well in a mundane framework?
When i was playing around in solar fire time ago trying to superimpose things for altitude conjunctions or rapt parallels and so on... i realized that you can superimpose fixed stars as user defined points in solar fire.
That got me thinking about things...
In my opinion stars should be delineated mundanely in prime vertical campanus mundoscope!
The same way we delineate planetary angularity for horizon (asc dsc) and meridian (mc ic) should be used for fixed stars. As for non-foreground mundane planets i accept de facto conjunction effect of any 2 or more planets conjunct in mundoscope (read this topic viewtopic.php?p=8733#p8733 , point number 2 "Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects").
1. Star parans produce incorrect mundane orbs compared to mundoscope, sometimes 1 degree off, sometime 2 or more degrees off compared to pv mundoscope.
2. You can use only angles, since planets are only processed in "rise-asc upper-mc set-dsc lower-ic" angle framework, therefore you cannot use them for exact date time location for natal and mundane charts. Star parans for planets produces a projected position of planets at angles at the time when the planet reached that angle in the span of 24 hours. For me that type of parans (they call them rotated parans which is what solar fire uses) are a complete joke. Thats not astrology. Astrology is exact date time location when a chart is cast.
That was the big discovery!
This means we must not use software's star aspects and star parans. Both are invalid. For me longitude positions of fixed stars for delineation are completely useless and worthless except to know their projected ecliptical positions (the only bright stars close to the ecliptic up to 1 degree are zuben elgenubi, regulus and acrab, and even 1 degree is too much since mundanely they can fall out of orbs that we have set beforehand).
1. Orbs for angles are 3 degrees, dont go past 3 degrees, in my experience that is where the cutoff line is.
2. Orbs for non-angular planets with stars are 1 degree (1 degree 30 minutes maximum, dont go past 1.30 that is where the cutoff line is.) I prefer 1 degree mundane conjunction
Use only conjunctions, i must stress the importance of using only conjunctions with stars in mundoscope, and in my experience, there is a difference whether the star is conjunct asc or dsc, likewise mc ic, much to my surprise, some old astrologers and even the ancient astrologers have gotten it right regarding this in my opinion (for example a star conj. asc will give specific effects regarding the physical flesh bone body or physical abilities, while the same star conj. lets say MC will give different effect, certainly not regarding the body.)
Investigating fixed stars in prime vertical campanus mundoscope and in all auxiliary angles in both natal and mundane charts i have realized the following:
In natal and mundane astrology:
A fixed star can only exert its influence when it is:
a) conjuct ASC-DSC, MC-IC angles in prime vertical campanus mundoscope, within 3° orb.
I haven't detected any difference in power from 0-3°. When the orb is 3°01min or higher the star's influence disappears. The cut-off is sharp and acute and absolute.
Stars don't need planets in order to function at angles, they are independent. I havent detected any noteworthy difference in star influence with the four main angles, therefore it is irrelevant whether the star is for example on the ASC in mundo or on the MC in mundo.
b) the same stands for ecliptical squares to the ascendant (zenith-nadir), ecliptical squares to midheaven, and conjunctions to westpoint-eastpoint axis in right ascension. Except squares to midheaven should be taken with only 2° orb!
c) conjunct SUN and/or MOON in PV campanus mundoscope only within 2° orb. (i would be tempted to push them to 3° orb, but i'll use 2° orb for the time being)
I haven't examined stars conjunct the rest of the standard planetary bodies, therefore i cannot state anything with conviction (i will leave them alone for now)
Stars conjunct Sun and Moon in mundo behave for all practical purposes just like stars at angles that i have explained above. Therefore mundo conjunctions to the Sun and Moon make a star act as if it was on an angle. There is no difference whether it is conjunct the Sun or the Moon.
I speculate the same will NOT be the case with star mundo conjunctions with other planets, i predict they will not give angular effect and only exert attributes pertaining of the star and that particular planet. (of course we first have to procure evidence if stars conjunct other planets in mundo have any kind of effect at all)
Also i haven't examined acute background mundo conjunction with a luminary, whether cadent house cusp effects positive or negative manifestations of a star's influence, for example (even in acute background the effect is still angular, only the manifestation of infuence is currently unknown to me, i will leave this alone for now as well to focus on the fundamentals).
I havent examined the VERTEX-ANTIVERTEX framework for the fixed stars. I know for certain vertex axis cannot produce angular effects with the stars or the effects with the Sun and Moon. Other forms of vertex star influence manifestation remains unknown for now. (i will leave them alone as well)
Aspects:
a) Stars unlike planets only work by the conjunctional contact in PV campanus mundoscope (and in longitude for the auxiliary angles, and RA for WP-EP). This is the most important radical discovery in my work with fixed stars!
Old astrological language of the past would say that they do not cast "rays". All other form of aspects such as the opposition and the square let alone the trine or sextile are invalid! Also all form of parans (including rotated parans) are invalid. Stars cannot aspects stars as well.
solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=1646
I agree with him that fixed stars can be looked at in Prime Vertical charts, but I believe that there are other ways of looking at fixed stars. I am a strong believer in looking at fixed stars in Right Ascension and Declination which are the coordinates that astronomers use to locate and track celestial objects. Western Sidereal Astrologer Kenneth Bowser uses those coordinates too. After seeing my Right Ascension star conjunctions on a star globe in Prometheus Astrology program, my belief has grown stronger. I have also come to the realization that fixed stars can be looked at in Azimuth and Local Horizon charts too, and I have developed strong interest in them. I think that I would be much better off using Azimuth and Local Horizon charts than using parans. I feel that using Ecliptic Longitude is a bit iffy, but I use it. Highly astronomically oriented astrologers Philip Sedgwick and Michael Erlewine have been using projected ecliptic conjunctions with even deep space objects. I think that a lot of Astrology is symbolic any way.
I did check out UncleAries' method
In my Astrological Nativity
Prime Vertical Chart:
53 Eridanus Spectrum conjunct Midheaven - '42
Alpha Trianguli Australis Atria conjunct Imum Coeli - '44
Zeta Ophiuchus Han conjunct Imum Coeli - '51
Alpha Taurus Aldebaran conjunct Midheaven - 1'08
pi3 Orion Tabit conjunct Midheaven - 2'47
Alpha Scorpius Antares conj Imum Coeli - 2'31
Zeta Puppis Naos conjunct Ascendant - 1'05
Epsilon Cygnus Gienah conj Descendant - 2'17
Mercury conjunct Beta Libra Zuben Elschemali - '54
Venus conjunct Alpha Serpens Unukalhai - 1'07
Venus conjunct Beta Centaurus Agena - '23
Mars conjunct Beta Aquarius Sadalsuud - '33
Mars conjunct Alpha Piscis Austrinus Fomalhaut - 1'25
I'd use no more than 2 degree orb for the angles and luminaries.
I'd use no more than 1 degree orb for the planets.
