Aspects in Astrology, a Question

[Disciple of the Serpent]

I have some questions in regards of aspects in astrology.

So there are what we call aspects:
-Conjunction (0° or 360°)
-Opposition (180°)
-Square (90°)
-Trine (120°)
-Sextile (60°)
-Inconjunct (150°)
-Semi-Square (45°)
-Sesquiquadrate (135°)
-Semi-Sextile (30°)

Let's see an example, Sun Square Moon, with Sun distant 90° from Moon:

Below I found a possible relation about why these exact numbers are used.

My question therefore, why we don't have an aspect of 72°, 108° like in the Pentagon, or 137° as the Golden Angle?
Or any other meaningful number, like 111, or 666 (Do a circle, -360°, so 306° therefore)?

 

[Edward Lonsa]

My question therefore, why we don't have an aspect of 72°, 108° like in the Pentagon, or 137° as the Golden Angle?
Or any other meaningful number, like 111, or 666 (Do a circle, -360°, so 306° therefore)?

Greetings, Brother!

Thanks for the great pictures and collection.

We do have these aspects, please check here:

Astrological aspect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

72 is one of the most marvelous aspects one might have, quintile. 108 relates to the family of deciles that are semiquintiles thus the relative of quintile. They are also known as Sesquiquintile. 137 is too close to 135 so I wonder what would resonate. 111 is just too close to 112,5. As for 666 I think there is a reason why aspects are usually calculated only before 180 degrees and not after. 360 here would be trespassed at least once and 666 would fall into 306 i.e. around -54 if counted from 0-1 Aries counterclockwise. 54 exists and is Trivigintile or Sesquidecile i.e. also semiquintile family i.e. relative of quintile. This pours a lot of light into the occult reality behind decile family and quintile one as its relative why we dream about their configurations and pray for their Yods.

I believe that these bigger numbers exist and resonate in astrology yet they stand behind existing countable aspects and give them deeper hidden octaves.

 

[Ælberiigor]

My point if view is (sorry, I've nothing to draw):

• Consider the angle from the center of the chart rather than polygon angles.
• The chart is divided in 12 parts (360 / 12 = 30); and not in 5 or else
• Aspects are in relation with angles being a multiple of 30 (a plain sign) or the half of one of them
• There are : 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180
• Then :
  • 210 is the mirror of 150
  • 240 is the mirror of 120
  • 270 is the mirror of 90
• Else :
  • 45 = 90 / 2
  • 135 = 270 / 2; 270 being -90

So there is no place for angles like 72 despite is = to 360 / 5.
I don' t know them all but the rule seems to be:

• if they have a relation with the 1/3rd, 1/6th... and not with 1/4th, they are beneficial, soft class.
• if they have a relation with the 1/4th... they are harmful, hard class.
• conjunction is just without concession, and considered to be "hard" - (Venus conjunct Jupiter must not be so hard to live)

Personally, I think them in term of resonance VS dissonance rather than beneficial VS harmful.

 

[Disciple of the Serpent]

My point if view is (sorry, I've nothing to draw):

• Consider the angle from the center of the chart rather than polygon angles.
• The chart is divided in 12 parts (360 / 12 = 30); and not in 5 or else
• Aspects are in relation with angles being a multiple of 30 (a plain sign) or the half of one of them
• There are : 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180
• Then :
  • 210 is the mirror of 150
    
  • 240 is the mirror of 120
    
  • 270 is the mirror of 90
• Else :
  • 45 = 90 / 2
    
  • 135 = 270 / 2; 270 being -90

So there is no place for angles like 72 despite is = to 360 / 5.
I don' t know them all but the rule seems to be:

• if they have a relation with the 1/3rd, 1/6th... and not with 1/4th, they are beneficial, soft class.
• if they have a relation with the 1/4th... they are harmful, hard class.
• conjunction is just without concession, and considered to be "hard" - (Venus conjunct Jupiter must not be so hard to live)

Personally, I think them in term of resonance VS dissonance rather than beneficial VS harmful.

Thank you for this.

But what about the phisical aspect of this?

I am at the center of the chart, I look at the sky, and there are 2 planets 135 degrees of distance from one another.

With me these form a triangle, which is 1/8 of an Octagon, with the angle of an Octagon.

These shapes and positions would generate a force field, and energy pattern, that define X quality of said aspect.

Even if it's not based on 30°, there is still a forcefield related with Pentagon at 108°, and 72°, yes?