Out of Sign Aspects?
As a practical matter in my courses we do take into consideration out of sign aspects. Theoretically speaking consider that the origin of aspects is in Hellenistic astrology when they are 100% sign to sign. So any planet in Aries is in trine to any planet in Leo, for example. This is the original strata of aspects. But the innovation of the 9-10th century Arabic astrologers is to redefine aspects in terms of degrees, thus allowing for orbs which are a gauge of timing and strength and for applying and separating aspects, plus a whole plethora of techniques like translation and collection of light, etc.
So the degrees apart become much more significant, though the original meanings of the aspects as derived from the relationship of signs are still present.
Both aspects by sign and aspect by degree are rational, but if you are going to use both definitions at the same time you are going to have some glitches. Out of sign aspects are an example. So you can deal with them either by ignoring the aspect by degree or ignoring the lack of aspect by degree. My preference is to go with the aspect by degree despite being out of sign. I see the aspect by degree as being more central to what defines an aspect.
What I do pay very close attention to and I think gives very useful information that is lost if out of sign aspects are ignored, is the change of dignity of the significators that takes place before perfection. If for example the ruler of the 1st is the Sun in Cancer
who then changes to Leo before perfecting the aspect you have
situation where the querent or elector is currently weak but becomes
much stronger. Alternatively you could have Venus going from Libra to Scorpio, in which case the querent or elector is, or appears to be super strong and then becomes quite afflicted before perfecting the aspect, so perhaps they are overly enthusiastic now and will soon become very negative, or are very able but will soon become very
unable.
My natural inclination is to consider out of sign aspects, but I realize that this is not universal. And what I realized in thinking about out of sign aspects is that there is a pull in contemporary traditional astrology to ignore factors in the chart. Out of sign aspects is a good example and some astrologers throw out the entire horary chart if the strictures are infringed or if the chart is not technically radical. This is not to say that this pull is wrong, but personally, as I pointed out with the changing dignity of out of sign aspects, I prefer not to ignore chart factors, instead I try to objectively and dispassionately see what information these factors are providing.
|
