Chiron (Synastry)
Pavilions of Sun
by The Magi Society. I posted about it a month or so ago, too. It's
been one of the most interesting astrology books I've read in awhile,
and I recommend it, not only because I think they are on to something
regarding Chiron in synastry, but because it also serves as a fine
catalyst for causing one to rethink everything s/he's learned regarding
the outer planets.
Well over a month since I've read the book, I'm now taking some of
it with a grain of salt, such as the "cookbook" section - which is
necessary with *any* cookbook material. But what mostly impresses
me is the material regarding Chiron in synastry, and their material
on electional charts.
Another interesting factor is that their system requires just a
birth date, not a birth time. As a result, the Moon is barely
considered in their book, nor are the angles or houses. I haven't
had a long enough time to see if some of what they say holds water
(such as how to tell whether a person expresses predominantly the
positive or negative traits of their Sun, and other planets), but
just from my own personal experience, I can vouch anecdotally for
the importance of Chiron in certain combinations in synastry.
They use very small orbs, but include declinations as aspects.
Neptune trine Chiron between charts is excellent, according to them.
Mars Chiron linkages (conjunction, trine, parallel or contra-parallel,
(quincunx) is also a marital aspect. But if the bad aspects outweigh the
good ones, it can diminish the power of the good ones.
It's a fascinating book, and well worth the investment.
In <000701bf0933$a14e2b60$d8d5...@auag.efortress.com> "Susan Sarantos" <au...@efortress.com> writes:
>Hi,
> Libralove wrote about Chiron/synastry awhile ago and I am trying to find
>more info. I noticed that my Mars in his 5th house is 0.01 conjunct to my
>friends Chiron. Also my Chiron is in his 5th house. His Chiron is 1.29 trine
>my Neptune. His Chiron is in my 10th house. Does anyone know where I can
>find the info/research that Libralove mentioned by the Magi society?
>Thanks,
>Susan Sarantos
>su...@sarantos.com
>http://www.sarantos.com
--
Pavilions of Sun
Also, I just want to say thank you to LibraLove, C.B. Willis, and
last year, Biff, for mentioning the book. I'm sure I'd never have
looked at it if I hadn't heard about it first from their posts.
Pavilions of Sun
>(quincunx) is also a marital aspect. But if the bad aspects outweigh the
Correction:
Darn it, quincunx shouldn't have had that extra ( in front of it.
The way I typed my paragraph, it looks as if they call parallels and
cotraparallels a quincunx - they don't. Quincunx is an additional
favorable (believe it or not) aspect in their opinion, except
when it involves Saturn in synastry or an electional chart.
--
Indrani DasGupta
interesting book? They make absolutely NO mention of the Nodal axis! Gail,
can you explain this lack, please?
Thanks!
Pavilions of Sun <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:7sp3p1$st0$1...@panix6.panix.com...
Pavilions of Sun
>Can I just mention one thing I found odd about this otherwise pretty
>interesting book? They make absolutely NO mention of the Nodal axis! Gail,
>can you explain this lack, please?
>Thanks!
Hi, Indrani. What I surmise is that the reason the nodes are excluded
is that the M.S. pretty much exclude the Moon itself. In fact, this was
one of the things which initially bothered me about their system (and
which bothers me about the heliocentric system). I can never quite
rid myself of the suspicion that Moonless astrologies are in some part
a reaction against the feminine principle, or at least its more primal
manifestations. Moonless systems of astrology, it seems to me, appeal
primarily to those who, for one reason or another, reject or seek to
suppress an inner emotional acknowledgement of those things which
the Moon traditionally (or commonly) represents in natal astrology -
the psychological state; the mother (in nocturnal charts); the
nurturing principle. No one will ever convince me that the Moon
does not symbolize the menstrual cycle and the three phases of
womanhood. For some people, these things are found to be repugnant,
disgusting, or even shameful, although this is probably less true
now than it may have been in the past. So I am always suspicious
of Moonless systems of astrology lest they imply a hidden fear of
the biological, messy, blood 'n guts aspects of life that are so inherent
in the feminine experience.
But I came to realize that, at least in the case of the Magi Society, this
is not so much a bias as it is a mere convenience. They don't
use the Moon because they don't use times, only dates. And, perhaps,
in light of the difficulty we've seen discussed here regarding what
constitutes a valid birth time for astrological purposes, the approach of
the Magi Society is ultimately the most scrupulously honest of all,
since they dispense entirely with the notion of any exact birth
time for astrological purposes. Obviously, they discard with equal
abandon the angles and houses as well.
Here's the rub, though. Although their system seem simplistic,
and they present it as such, I find that it is actually harder to
use their methods of electional astrology than it is to use the
traditional system. The reason, of course, is the Moon. Without
the Moon, and without the houses, their system allows us only the
Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, and the outers including Chiron, to
work with. Well, this is fine if one has lots and lots of time to
plan the event, as in, for instance, a wedding. But in ordinary
day to day work, we are often working within a much shorter window
of time in which to compose the election of an event. In matters
of war, for example, strategies must be formulated quickly - there
is not the luxury of waiting weeks for favorable aspects of Venus
or Jupiter. But add in the Moon and houses, as we do in traditional
systems, and something adequate can be elected in just 3 day's time
at most. It may not be optimal, but it will be adequate.
Despite what I consider to be the drawbacks of the Magi Society's
system, I do continue to be fascinated by many facets of it. I
think though that Zane Stein was the first to make the connection
between Chiron and childbirth. The Magi Soc. apparently expanded
upon this idea to include the principles of love, trust, and
familial bonding, among other things. But what do you think of
their ideas regarding Neptune? Made my head spin, frankly, and
they make a good case for their ideas - all of them.
--
Indrani DasGupta
Hi!! It's good to be back after such a prolonged lurk.
What you say re the Magi unwillingness to use the exact birth time makes
sense to me. Esp. since some of the conclusions they've come to seem a bit
too pat for my taste. But it's contradictory too, y'know. Because here they
have a 1deg 20 or so min. orb for the "Chiron linkages" (interchart Chiron
contacts); that's tight, right? But then they don't mention the moon or the
nodes or the asc (just a bit).
I was just really surprised by the lack of the nodes. I mean the nodes seem
to be so prevalent everywhere concerning synastric aspects. Also, interchart
similar planetary aspects aside, a tight Chiron-Chiron interaspect is
something I've been noticing in a lot of comparisons. They ignore that, too.
re Neptune: I gotta tell you something. Going thru some of the example
charts they give, I got the serious willies when they kept talking about
planetary linkages between John Kennedy jr and Carolyn Bessett (this book
was obviously written before that tragedy). Anyway, guess what it was? I
can't recall the exact aspects right now but it was something like Mars,
Chiron, Pluto and Neptune. All these planets were closely connected between
them, forming some sort of a linkage pattern the Magi Society terms a Super
Romantic Linkage, etc (I think this was a grand trine). Apparently, a SRL is
what two people need between them to solidify a relationship and give it
that official seal. Anyway, they defined this particular JFK/Carolyn B.
linkage with words like passion, romance, marriage, permanence, etc. All
terms by which they define these planets. But I mean, my god! In
hindsight -- it's just amazing. Pluto, Neptune, Mars? And if Chiron is fate
then, via traditional astrological interpretation, just what do we have
here? A joint fate of a violent, watery death! This scares me a bit, Gail.
But Neptune as the supreme romantic planet of *permanence*? I don't know.
What do YOU think?
Indrani.
Pavilions of Sun <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:7tjgdv$aru$1...@panix6.panix.com...
Pavilions of Sun
>Gail,
>Hi!! It's good to be back after such a prolonged lurk.
:) It's good to see you back, and I hope your lurkages will grow shorter
in duration. :)
>What you say re the Magi unwillingness to use the exact birth time makes
>sense to me. Esp. since some of the conclusions they've come to seem a bit
>too pat for my taste. But it's contradictory too, y'know. Because here they
>have a 1deg 20 or so min. orb for the "Chiron linkages" (interchart Chiron
>contacts); that's tight, right?
Yep - but in Uranian astrology, generally only a 30 minute orb is allowed.
But, oh heavens, we're really talking apples and artichokes if we start
trying to compare Uranian, which sees no problem with hard aspect
synastry, to Magi Soc. and traditional, which warns against hard aspect
synastry. Incidentally, I believe the Magi Society's 3 degree orb in
longitude means 3 degrees on either side, and the one degree 12 minute
orb in declinations means one degree 12 minutes on either side. I'll
have to recheck their examples to make sure.
>But then they don't mention the moon or the
>nodes or the asc (just a bit).
Right, just a bit. Well, to me, that makes sense. Since they're
working with fewer bodies, they rely upon only the tightest aspects
to tell the main story, which is fine with me. After all, if you
have a synastry, and the closest interaspect between charts is a
Venus Uranus square or something, that's going to be more characteristic
of the relationship than a Sun Jupiter trine which might have a larger orb
of 6 degrees or more.
>I was just really surprised by the lack of the nodes. I mean the nodes seem
>to be so prevalent everywhere concerning synastric aspects. Also, interchart
>similar planetary aspects aside, a tight Chiron-Chiron interaspect is
>something I've been noticing in a lot of comparisons. They ignore that, too.
Yes, they ignore all same planet contacts between charts - or, at least,
they consider them less important. Most synastry methods share that
opinion, I think, unless we get into the various midpoint methods of
chart comparison.
Since the nodes are not actual bodies, and since they are points
related to the Moon's orbit, I'm not so surprised they're ignored by
the M.S. They've pared down their toolkit to include only the most
obvious and telling of factors. There's lots of disagreement among
astrologers as to the meanings and significance of the lunar nodes.
It depends on what each individual astrologer feels most comfortable
using. I haven't noticed that my nodal axis is terribly visible
within major synastries; I tend to think its effects or role are
largely subliminal. Contacts to the nodes in my chart are not felt
by me in the way I can feel a hit to my Venus, for instance.
>re Neptune: I gotta tell you something. Going thru some of the example
>charts they give, I got the serious willies when they kept talking about
>planetary linkages between John Kennedy jr and Carolyn Bessett (this book
>was obviously written before that tragedy). Anyway, guess what it was? I
>can't recall the exact aspects right now but it was something like Mars,
>Chiron, Pluto and Neptune. All these planets were closely connected between
>them, forming some sort of a linkage pattern the Magi Society terms a Super
>Romantic Linkage, etc (I think this was a grand trine). Apparently, a SRL is
>what two people need between them to solidify a relationship and give it
>that official seal. Anyway, they defined this particular JFK/Carolyn B.
>linkage with words like passion, romance, marriage, permanence, etc. All
>terms by which they define these planets. But I mean, my god! In
>hindsight -- it's just amazing. Pluto, Neptune, Mars? And if Chiron is fate
>then, via traditional astrological interpretation, just what do we have
>here? A joint fate of a violent, watery death! This scares me a bit, Gail.
I know, it is scary. Well, the marriage *was* permanent - to the death.
>But Neptune as the supreme romantic planet of *permanence*? I don't know.
>What do YOU think?
Ha ha hee... well, obviously this is not what I have been taught and I
know my Uranian instructor would have had some very interesting comments
to offer the M.S. in rebuttal. But - hey, natally, I have a semi-square
between Saturn and Neptune - so, *how would I know* whether all the
stuff I've been accusing Neptune of all my astrological life shouldn't
be laid at the heavy clay feet of Saturn? And during some of the worst
times of my life, I was having double whammies of Saturn and Neptune -
and everything I blamed Neptune for could easily have been the effects
of Saturn, according to the M.S. definition of Saturn. I do know that
when Neptune was square my Sun/Moon midpoint, I felt quite good, really -
naturally stoned, and pretty much at peace with my messy life. I was
kinder then, too. And I know that everytime I've fallen in love (and
I fall in love quite regularly:) there have been Romantic Super Linkages
of Venus and Chiron, and Neptune and Chiron, or the Cupid Linkage
of Sun and Venus in the synastries. By the way, I have *long* felt
that Sun Venus across charts was way more powerful than Sun Moon
in matters of love, so I was pleased to see that the M.S. thought so,
too. And finding those Chiron linkages in all my falling in love
synastries blew my mind. So...... about Neptune? I'll keep watching...
--