Sunday, 8 January 2012

Out of sign aspects

Do they count? Some say they do, others say they don't. Those who say they don't (myself included) view the beginning and end of the sign as boundaries, which means that you cannot have a conjunction between planets located in adjacent signs, no matter how close they are. Or a trine between planets that are in signs which belong in a different triplicity. That is because, if we accept the opposite, then it totally cancels out the essential meaning of a conjunction, a trine etc. How can there be a conjunction between the Moon in Sagittarius and Jupiter in Capricorn for example, when these two planets want two completely different things?
The ones who say they do count, claim that if the aspect is within orb, then it is an aspect, only less effective. The problem, however, of the two planets wanting two different things, remains. If you want to stick to this theory, then you must also be of the opinion that signs don't act as boundaries and that the end and the beginning of each sign is a fuzzy area that comprises characteristics of two signs. The Moon, therefore, is NOT in Sagittarius and Jupiter is NOT in Capricorn, but instead they are located in this fuzzy area that is both Sagittarius AND Capricorn to a certain extent. Only then would a conjunction be possible. You can't keep the boundaries theory and at the same time speak of a conjunction. That is impossible.


  1. (my) practice has shown me that not only they count but sometimes they are much more effective than the usual aspects.

    but even in terms of theory I see not the "impοssibility" for an out of sign aspect to be effective. Taking your example... in my opinion there is not reason for the two planets to be placed in the same sign simply because a conjunction does not imply "agreement" but "union", and a union is not necessarily "peaceful".

    Take as an example the marriage of two persons coming from different social classes. You may doubt the compatibility of their union of course, but you cannot doubt the fact of their wedding.

  2. I take your point, but conjunction, as Frawley points out, is actually the coming together,like sexual intercourse and he jokes: "Have you ever tried having sex with your wife from another room?"

  3. lol, really clever but i think he wasn't aware of... cyber-sex ! (now i am wondering what kind of 'sexual intercourse' we have when Saturn conjuncts Pluto let's say, maybe guy s/m?

    now, there is another point here, because if I accept Frawley's view then I'll need to create rules for every different aspect. And I think that by doing this we just lose the point.

    in any case we know that Squares, Trines etc are formed between planets in different signs/'rooms'. So if Frawley has a complete theory that explains why I have to consider the signs as 'rooms' and one kind of aspect as 'sexual intercourse' then he must also tell me what are his definitions for the rest of the possible 'connections' between planets (aspects) which are not included in his explanation.

    For example if, in the same way as Frawley, I consider a square as a fight between two persons then tell me how those two persons fight from different rooms ?

    of course, if there is already a complete theory that I'm mot aware of we can discuss it.

    all this is theory of course because practice shows that out of signs aspects really work.

  4. No, that is valid only for the conjunction, because technically conjunction is not an aspect. The two planets do not see one another, they are ONE. Aspects are a different story. Here the two planets do NOT become one, they influence each other, because they are in signs that behold one another. Still, a planet in Leo cannot possibly be in a square aspect with a planet in Sagittarius, even if we have the Sun at 29o59' Leo and the Moon at 0o01' Sagittarius. They used to form a square when the Moon was in Scorpio, but the minute she moved into Sagittarius, the square ceased to exist, because it is simply not possible to have a square between planets in the same triplicity of signs. This is a trine aspect, maybe weak or ineffective, but a trine nevertheless. A square, it isn't.

    What works in practice is very open to debate. If that were the case then there would be universal agreement among astrologers in almost everything, because we are all supposedly interested in what works. However, there's violent disagreement in lots and lots of issues. Out of sign "aspects" may seem to work sometimes, but this is because it is the very next aspect a planet makes or the very last aspect it made and still carries some of the other planet's energy. But NOT because they are aspects in the true sense of the word.

  5. Some talk too much without saying anything! Up to here I find that seeks clear and precise way bravo ...

  6. From my vantage point, experience can trump theory. I live out such a conjunction in a powerful way. I have Venus in Pisces conjunct an Aquarius MidHeaven. Aquarius shows up in my love for Astrology, work in aviation and the manner in which electronics behave erratically in my presence. Pisces is my love of the above mentioned and attracting those from the other side in a creative manner, the combination works as being a telepathic Esoteric Astrologer who works in the aviation industry. It is akin to mixing blue and red blending the colors to purple, there is no boundary and you can not separate the two. Otherwise with these strict boxes it steals the beautiful uniqueness of the soul's blueprint.

  7. There are no drawn boundaries in the sky. Cosmic energies just flow and blend in sequences just like in a rainbow. True there are 7 colors in the rainbow. But are they really 7? We cant separate colors with lines. Violet gives way to Indigo which gives way to blue. I tend to think the whole universe is a flowing flux and therefore there are no lines between signs as much as there are no lines between colors in a rainbow.
    So my point. Signs have a fuzzy mixed energy at the 'boundary' and therefore conjunctions are valid perhaps within tight orbs as some say. However, I cant comment much about other aspects because i really don't how a square actually works in the sky though i know it in theory.