Knowledgebase.
Standards. Birth
times.
Firstly, at what point do we say a child is truly born? Appearance of the baby's head, full separation from the mother, the cutting of the umbilical, the first cry? It seems logical to adopt the point at which the baby becomes independent from the mother; my own view is when the baby takes its first breath.
Secondly, we have the problem of the clock. Was it accurate? Quite often they are not; people don't necessarily synchronise their watches; clocks in a maternity suit may similarly be out.
What usually happens is that when the chaos has settled down, someone glances at the clock - which could be quite some time after the event. More often than not, the time is rounded up or down to the nearest five minutes or even quarter of an hour. Sometimes the time of birth is a rough guess which is then offered up as an accurate time.
It can easily lead to error if you simply accept the given birth time as fact. Always suspect the time of birth and make the appropriate allowances. In the final analysis, it is better to interpret a chart knowing that the birth time is approximate rather than assume it is accurate - at least there are techniques designed to cope with this problem.
Unknown time of birth. One of the major problems we astrologer's have to deal with is an unknown birth time. Quite often, the public view this as the kiss of death as far as having a horoscope cast - yet this is not true, something can be done.
It is important to realise that the technique known as rectification is not as wonderful as some would have you believe; often the impression is given that the resulting chart is 'accurate', which may not be the case. At best, all you can expect is a chart that is slightly better than before; at worst, it may be completely wrong.
The main problem with an unknown birth time is that the true time of birth could lie anywhere within a 24 hour time span and as the Moon moves quite quickly [12 - 14 degrees per day] one can never be sure exactly where it is and what aspects it is making to other planets.
A common approach is to erect a chart for midday - a so-called 'flat' chart. However, this makes the resulting Houses quite useless and fixes the Moon in a position which may be far from reality thereby considerably reducing the accuracy of the overall interpretation. Some astrologers advocate placing the Sun on the ascendant, and while logic dictates there is merit in this approach, nevertheless it is a compromise and it would be easy to make the mistake of assuming that the resulting chart is 'accurate'.
The technique I use is quite different and does give Houses that are valid. The problems with the Moon are also reduced by filtering out any indications likely to be suspect. Although no horoscope based on an unknown birth time can ever be completely accurate, I am confident that my own approach does give better results and far more information than has been previously possible. I use a similar technique with times that are vague, for example: between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m., and the results are far better than normal methods.
The bottom line is: whether your time of birth is vague or even unknown you can still have a meaningful horoscope.
Contents of chart. I should stress that it is absolutely essential not to clutter up the chart with all manner of 'trendy' artifacts, such as asteroids, Nodes, Arabic Parts and the like. Do this an your chart will only suffer in the later stages by producing huge volumes of interpretations, Make things worse by including aspects to these bodies and the burden becomes even worse. The idea that the more you include in a chart the better will be the interpretation is false, in fact the reverse is the case.
A chart should contain planets and Angles [Ascendant, Descendant, Mc. Ic.] only . Furthermore you should only include aspects between planets - NOT aspects to the Angles as this will produce false aspect patterns and was not what the original author intended. Keep it simple and you will get far better results.
Some astrologers - thankfully few - with a leaning more towards more psychological interpretations have suggested that Houses should be ignored altogether. I feel this is a mistake. One has only to examine a chart with an afflicted planet in the 12th House to see the strange and often disturbing effects such a planet can have - effects that would have been missed if Houses were not used.
Equal House. Formed by dividing the diurnal circle into twelve equal parts. By far the most reliable House system. Charts can be erected for any location on the globe.
Quadrant systems. There are many, the most popular being Placidus. The validity of these systems is highly questionable and it is not possible to erect charts for every location. In addition, we have the strange phenomenon of having planets and Signs unable to rule some Houses. Far more serious is that planets can end up in the wrong Houses altogether. No one is able to say why one method should be used in preference to another - it appears that fad and fashion dictates which one is used. Often the only reason given for the use of a particular quadrant system is that 'it appears to work'. Hardly a good recommendation. It is my opinion after many years of checking alternate charting methods that quadrant systems may possibly offer an alternative perspective on a subject's life and as such could be used as secondary system, however the primary system should always be Equal House.
Here is a visual comparison of the equal House system with some of the most popular quadrant systems using the same birth data. As you can see, there is a vast difference in the House placing of the planets. Also, some of the Signs (and therefore their ruling planets) cannot rule a House while others rule more than one House - which is plainly unacceptable for normal interpretation.
<Top>
Orbs. Any would-be astrologer could be forgiven for being confused when faced with the variety of orbs offered by various sources, not to mention the occasional widening of orbs to suit a particular task.
Suffice to say that the size of orbs used will affect the number of aspects we have to deal with; too wide and we have too many aspects, some of which will be dubious; too narrow and we risk missing important information. So where do we draw the line? There are no hard and fast rules; the reality of the situation is that it is all down to experience which tells us when an orb is 'about right'. Not very scientific I grant you, but it is the best guide we have at the moment as there is no accurate way in which the effects of changing an orb can be quantified.
I feel it is absolutely vital to adopt a standard for planetary orbs and then stick to it. Widening orbs to suit this and that is to my way of thinking rather like moving the goalposts. You can make things fit by doing this, and you can also make some pretty silly mistakes in the bargain. Also, I know it is very tempting to include an aspect which is just a few minutes of arc outside of orb, but one has to draw the line somewhere - and stick to it. Of course there is an argument, probably a valid one, which says that a planetary effect doesn't simply cut off at the outer limit of an orb, but if we also accept that activity gradually decreases as the orb increases, sooner or later we get to a point where the effect is sufficiently weak to be negligible. Finding that critical point is largely down to observation and experience.
The orbs offered below are based on years of application and can be relied on to yield accurate results. Major aspects: Conjunction, Trine, Opposition, Square. Orb 8 degrees. Sextile. Orb 6 degrees. Minor aspects: Semisextile, Semisquare, Sesquiquadrate, Quincunx, Orb 2 degrees Parallels: Parallel, counter-parallel. Orb 1 degree. Other aspects. The following aspects exist but are rarely if ever used and are not part of the standard aspect set used in astrology.
Quintile. 72 degrees. BiQuintile. 144 degrees. Decile. 36 degrees. TriDecile. 108 degrees. Septile. 51 deg. 26 min. BiSeptile. 102 deg. 51 min. TriSeptile 154 deg. 17 min. Novile 40 degrees. BiNovile 80 degrees. QuadriNovile 160 degrees. Unidecagon. 32 degrees 44 minutes.
Common mistakes. Assuming that minor aspects have less effect than major and can therefore be ignored. All aspects are valid and carry weight.
Assuming that the semisextile is a beneficial aspect. It isn't, in fact it can be quite troublesome. All minor aspects are difficult.
Assuming that parallels of declination don't matter. Although a serious study needs to be done in this area, my own experiences suggest that they do matter and that they can have marked effects. Quite often, parallels to an unaspected planet provide the outlets needed for that planet to function properly.
Making the mistake that an unaspected planet can have one or two 'weak' aspects. Firstly, there are no weak aspects and, secondly, a planet with even one aspect is not unaspected.
Applying and separating aspects. Far too much is made of this in a natal chart and I have yet to see any firm evidence of any real difference between the two . It is really only relevant in future trends.
Charting methods. Before we can begin the task of analysing and interpreting a chart it is absolutely essential that the chart be readable - far too many charts are scribbled - and that it conforms to the correct standards. Far too often all manner of irrelevant data is added to a chart which creates the wrong impression and confuses the issue.
Basic chart factors. It is important to realise that the planets and Angles provide all the information you are ever likely to need. Don't clutter the chart with nodes, asteroids, Arabic Parts, and the like. Most of these things are highly speculative and serve only to complicate the overall picture. The best interpretations are based on simplicity.
Modes (Qualities & Elements). Use planets only. Do not include the Angles.
Polarity. Likewise, ten planets only.
Zodiac. The boundaries of the Signs should be clearly marked - often with computer generated charts they are not. It makes it much easier to see which Sign a planet is in rather than having to work it out. Use the elemental colours for the Signs rather than an assortment. Air Signs are yellow, Fire - red, Water - blue, and Earth - green. Looks much better.
Planets. Do avoid the practice of drawing some planets upside down, it simply makes the job of reading the chart that much more difficult. Planet colours look best like this on a normal white paper background.
Sun Moon Mercury Venus Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune Pluto
For a computer screen, make the background black and use these colours.
Sun Moon Mercury Venus Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune Pluto
Aspects. Aspects between planets only - do not show aspects to Angles as this confuses the picture and makes it difficult to assess aspect patterns or chart shaping. It goes without saying that aspects to other points are not shown because these points should not be in the chart anyway. Use minimal colours for the aspects. I suggest the time-honoured method of a solid red line for beneficial aspects, solid blue line for difficult aspects [Major], and use a lighter blue dashed line for the minor aspects. This is how it should look. Note how the T-squares, Mystic rectangle, and Kite shape can clearly be seen, which would not be the case if the orbs were too large, extra aspects were allowed, and extraneous artifacts such as asteroids were included.
Astrology needn't be a mystery, and learning the subject needn't be a chore. Check out the available courses for rapid learning methods using only the correct standards. You could soon be reading charts.
<Top>
Copyright © 2003 First Stop Astrology.com. All rights reserved.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
