Orbs used in synastric charts

[levaju]

I've read several inputs in other threads and became interested in the orbs you are using. I've gotten the impression that your're using a very small orbis when it comes to the asteroids, is this true? If you could give me some reflections on your own opinion of the orbis used in synastry chart it would be very interesting!

Best wishes,
Anne

[svenskasfinx]

Hej Anne!

I suspect that other people here use anywhere from 2 to 5 degrees.. (actually thats what I do depending upon the planet involved and the direction its moving in.)

I think I would tend to let the orbs be larger if the planets or asteroids happen to be going in the direction where one is meeting the other by aspect especially with the conjunction and the opposition.

If you keep the orbs closer with the objects, you don't have to fuss with a long list of aspects... In synastry I feel the orbs should be tight with the asteroids though, especially aspects between two of these types of objects.

Hope this helps,

svenskasfinx

[levaju]

Hej Svenskasfinx!
(Roligt att det tycks finnas flera från Sverige på det här forumet! :-) ) Thank you for your answer which I found very interesting!

I' ve used very small orbs for a long time, then changed my mind and started using wide orbs.. Then using wide orbs for some planets and placement while using small orbs for others. What has got me a bit confused is my experience of that wide orbs seems to be in focus when it comes to problems in relationships that has lasted for a longer period of time! Has anyone else made the same reflection? Anyway, I find this very interesting since I has been more focused on having a smaller orb. Since I started interpret the asteroids in charts (not towards my clients as much as for my own learning) it certainly became lots of new aspects to deal with. I have used a small orb after reading the inputs here to make it easier as you also implied as a reason do to do so :-)

Best wishes,
Anne

[Kim Falconer]

I agree with Svenskasfinx and can only add that orbs are a very tricky business! I don't think you can define them too strictly.

As Liz Greene has taught for decades, "if it acts like it is in orb of an aspect, then it probably is an aspect!"

Oddly, the ancients used to apply orbs to PLANETS, not the actual aspects. We allow more orb for say a conjunction than the inconjunct or semi-square, but the ancients allowed more orb for anything involving Venus and less for Saturn! It was a whole different approach.

I do like to keep asteroid orbs tight by, my goodness-- I have seen Eros contacts "work" that are more than 10 degrees of orb! I have seen them "work" when they are just in the same sign!

I give wider orbs for those planets and asteroids in aspect that are also parallel in declination.

I give wider orbs for asteroids that are on the angles or conjunct a personal planet., esp sun or moon.

If things are getting too cluttered in the synastry, I back off an look only at conjunct and opposing asteroids, and only the asteroids that "apply" to the question of the relationship--business, intimacy, parental, etc. I can then build up a framework from there.

I use pretty tight orbs (under 2 degrees) for progressions., converse progressions, draconic comparisons and midpoints.

I use generous orbs for everything else!

Most importantly, I look to see if the aspect reiterates a theme in the chart or states something completely new. If it stands "alone" in its meaning. I make sure the orb is tight before I pursue it further.

That's pretty much what I do, off the top of my head. Ultimately, orbs are a matter of personal taste and approach.

Start out with a respected teacher's guidelines for asteroid orbs, then adjust that to your own experience as you go on.

Does that make sense?

Warmly,
Kim

[levaju]

Thanks both Kim and Svenskasfinx!

It seems we do use orbs in the same way and have got similar experiences of them as well. :-) It was interesting to get your thoughts!

Best wishes,
Anne

[chrissymgreen]

dear LeVaJu,

ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mcmcann/art23.htm

it's an article on orbs, though i believe it primarily refers to orbs in natal astrology. still, you might find it interesting.

www.aplaceinspace.net/Pages/AndreSocialAstrology.html

i came across this today. the article's author has a very fascinating theory on orbs in synastry (i have quoted for you here the passage on orbs):

There are few more vexatious problems than that of orb, with values ranging as wide as seventeen degrees in certain circumstances (Jones, 1960), and as narrow as 1.5 degrees or less. Although orbs of about five degrees are the norm, this merely represents a practice. It does not appear to be based on research findings (but see Ridgley, 2000 for an example of a research study partly directed at resolving this question); and unfortunately there are a number of competing theories each justifying radically different values. However, an important trend to note is that orbs have tightened considerably over the last century; and that there is an almost universal tendency to consider that tighter orbs mean "stronger" influences.

Although what I present here is 'yet another theory', it has the advantage of being part of the larger theory or framework of a 'social' astrology, and it provides quite specific and testable ideas of how orb works. It also shows that the wide variation in values used by different schools of astrologers may be the outcome of a factor not previously considered important: that of the typical client's social network size; or more generally the population density of the community within which the astrologer operates.

The solution I present here is simple: from the synastric perspective, tighter orbs in the individual natal chart are "stronger" because, given a 'tight link', it is less likely that one's social network will include someone whose chart forms an even tighter link, and thus 'interferes with' or modifies the behaviours (actions, thoughts, feelings) otherwise shown by that natal aspect. In other words, the tighter the orb, the less likely it is that synastry will invalidate astrological delineations based on the individual natal chart alone. For example, suppose one has the configuration Moon Square Pluto with an orb of one degree. Within an active social network that includes five close friends or associates, the probability that at least one of those friends will form a closer fourth harmonic link (Conjunction, Square or Opposition) than this natal configuration is some 43%. The one degree link is therefore reasonably likely to remain 'intact'; apparently, a truly "individual" attribute. However, once the orb is increased to two degrees, the probability of a closer link to a friend's chart increases to some 67%, meaning it is now quite likely that a new or emergent behaviour with that friend will override the 'individual' configuration.

Put another way, the tighter the orbs used in delineating a natal chart, the more often the delineation will be true. The wider the orbs, the less often the delineation will be true, because it is more likely that the client will develop significant social patterns of behaviour with other people in their regular social network that override or modify the individual potential. In this perspective, the words "stronger" and "weaker" are actually ways of expressing our experience of what is 'more often true' and 'less often true' when we read charts for individual clients in isolation from their social context.

This perspective also casts light on two other points. It explains the very wide orbs that some astrologers use. They are used because occasionally they do in fact work. They will work because the clients in these cases have developed within a social network where no overriding synastric link has occurred. In the example I gave previously, a natal Moon Square Pluto will occasionally mean what that configuration is expected to mean even if the orb is 20 degrees, if the person involved has no relationships within which a closer Moon link occurs. It also explains the modern tendency to adopt tighter orbs than appear to have been used in previous centuries. This is happening because population density and mobility have increased to unprecedented levels compared to previous centuries, enormously reducing the chances for individual natal potentials to remain intact, and raising levels of purely social behaviour.

My final point concerns a crucial distinction between tight-link and loose-link configurations (including "unaspected" planets) in the natal chart. Dale Huckeby (personal communication, 13 March, 2000) has made the tentative observation that the charts of famous people tend to show "a kind of looseness". In contrast, "it's almost as [if] too 'powerful' a chart (in conventional terms) makes Jack a dull boy, or at least not a standout". It is now possible to understand this observation. Tight links and configurations within the natal chart are essentially more impervious to social networks. People with a predominantly tightly linked chart are more self-contained, less influenced by others, less changeable, and more likely to be successful subjects for individualistic natal chart readings. People with predominantly loose charts however are much more likely to develop a rangeof behaviours that alter significantly according to social context, that is, according to who they are interacting with at any given time.

Of course, these are general characterizations. Almost every chart contains a mixture of tight and loose links. The lesson is that in most social networks our tight links indicate our individually persistent behaviours; whereas our loose links indicate where our capacities for relationship and change are greatest and where we act, think, and feel significantly differently from person to person and from situation to situation.





hope you enjoy.


-chrissy






-c

[levaju]

Dear Chrissy!

Thank you so much for your input and the time you spent on it for me! It was very interesting and enlightning!

Best wishes,
Anne