Main Page
of
Locational
Consultant
Julian Lee.
 
 

Best
Astrocartography
Resources

Authorized Lewis A*C*G map, more.

Q. Such as?
a. First of all, some of his technical statements are literally untrue. Some of the planets he calls "least-aspected" are not least-aspected at all.

Q. Can you give an actual example?
a.Well, a good example is his prominent use of  Pablo Picasso. Couteau says Picasso's Sun is a  "least-aspected planet." However, using the traditional "major aspects," Uranus is actually Picasso's  least-aspected planet. As for Picasso's Sun, it possesses a very tight sextile from Mars, for crying out loud. Some astrologers would also say Picasso's Sun is conjunct Pluto. And by the way, the traits of Mars-Sextile-Sun, and Sun-Conjunct-Pluto, are obvious in the life and personality of Picasso. His  boldness, masculinity, and originality. His powerful creative drive his sex drive, etc.

Q. So therefore we should avoid taking what Couteau says at face value...
a. Well, definitely. Astrologers love elegant-sounding theories. But astrologers should definitely check things out before jumping on a "least-aspected" bandwagon. You spin an intriguing theory, then wishful thinking takes over. You can tweak "orb" parameters on a computer program and get all kinds of strange lists. You miss things that are obvious to the human eye.

An even greater problem with the Couteau stuff -- and this runs all through it -- is his assumption about what constitutes an aspect in the first place. It's very clear he has excluded the Quincunx and the Dodecile aspects, following the conventional astrology line that these are "minor aspects."

Q. Isn't it true that those are only minor aspects? This is what I've always heard.
a.Some people think they are minor, some people think they are major. Most astrologers have never even looked at them because they have all been told to discount them, so they have never examined it.

Q. What are you saying about those aspects?
a.The harshest of all the aspects -- whether natally or by transit -- are the quincunx and dodecile. They account for most of the suffering inherent in life, as described by astrological charts.

Q. Give an example.
a.Well, let's say you have your Moon in a dodecile (semi-sextile) to your Saturn. Read any good cookbook on the "Moon-square-Saturn." That will be you. But with the dodecile, twist it a few times, because it is actually more difficult than a square. Do the same thing with your transits and progressions. Watch those dodeciles and quincunxes. These are true "affliction" aspects, in the classical sense of the word.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding that plagues all of astrology today: this idea that the Quincunx and Semi-Sextile are "minor."

Now, realize that Couteau excludes both of these aspects to get most of his "least aspected" claims. If you watch for dodeciles and quincunxes, many of the planets Couteau is calling "least-aspected" are actually strongly aspected.

Q. Please elaborate.
a.A great example is Beatle John Lennon. Lennon lived with Sun-Conjunct-Dsc in England, and Couteau says that Lennon's Sun is a relatively unaspected planet. But when I look at Lennon's chart I see heavy aspecting to his Sun: First is an applying dodecile of Sun to his Neptune.

As stated, the dodecile aspect is one of the strongest afflictions. And when Sun, a fire planet, is afflicted against Neptune, we get tremendous creativity as well as glamour. It's also associated with addictions. Elton John has Sun-afflict-Neptune, and many other creative types have Sun-Neptune snags. (Paul McCartney, too.)

Lennon also had a strong quincunx of Sun to his Saturn, which would explain his struggle against authority figures. Lennon's Sun also sits in Quincunx to his Jupiter, acting like a Sun-square-Jupiter and giving energy and his preachy, evangelical streak. So according to my lights, John Lennon's Sun is not weakly-aspected at all.

So the Couteau material, for me, usually falls down right at the door with its narrow idea of what an aspect is. Couteau does the same kind of thing with John F. Kennedy...

Q. What does he say about J.F.K?
a.That J.F.K.'s sun is a "least-aspected" planet.

Q. That does seem strange, with J.F.K's star quality, sex-drive and all.
a.Well, it's another example of what I am saying. Kennedy didn't have a weak sun at all. First, his sun is in a sextile to Neptune. It is a separating sextile, about five degrees. But I teach that separating is still a happening aspect, especially when involving the big, transpersonal planets like Neptune, Pluto, etc. These outer planets you can think of as having a "wide field," as in a "magnetic field," etc. And it is especially relevant when one planet is a fire planet (Sun), and the other water (Neptune). In other words, any time Sun gets into Neptune's neighborhood, Sun gets "tetched." So Kennedy has this definite Sun-Sextile-Neptune.

Q. And that would easily explain his legendary charisma, as well as ability to pull off deceptions.
a.Yes, Couteau calls it "mythic." But there is a lot more to Kennedy's Sun. If you realize that the dodecile is a major aspect, you can see Kennedy's sun sitting very harshly against Pluto, in the dodecile.

Q. Ah-ha. So that would be like a Sun-afflict-Pluto, and this is associated with an intense sex drive, and a strong power quest.
a.Definitely. It also, by the way, will put you at odds with the heavies--people with power, often dark or underworld, who resist powerfully your expression of will. In other words, read it like "Sun-Square-Pluto" in any cookbook, and twist it a few times. That's the dodecile. And it's true that Sun square, quinx, or dodecile Pluto, such aspects put men out-of-control with their sex drive. That is very common with it. So, Kennedy is another case where Couteau is saying it's little-aspected, or "least-aspected," but we can definitely argue with that. Some would also say that Kennedy has a Venus conjunction to his sun. His Sun is at at 7Gem51, with Venus at 16Gem45.

Q. That's about nine degrees apart.
a.It's sort of wide, but one of my earliest teachers, back in Arkansas, always said that applying is a strong position. And a Vedic astrologer would flatly read it as a conjunction. They wouldn't see orb as an issue. They would say that Kennedy has Sun-Conjunct-Venus.

Q. And a Venus-Conjunct-Sun fits Kennedy well, because he was personally attractive, dressed well, and women liked him.
a.Right. This was "Camelot." Fine crystal and nice suits.

Welcome To Real Life:
SUCCESS AND THE WELL-ASPECTED PLANET

Another problem with Couteau's material is that it ignores the many successful people who lived near angular conjunctions, but where the planet was aspected strongly. In digging for examples of apparently weakly-aspected planets (and I've shown that his least-aspected examples are actually in doubt), he ignores the many examples of strongly-aspected planets serving well in an individual's locational story.

There are abundant examples of "angular conjunctions ala astrocartography" where a  famous person is leaning on a strongly aspected planet, not a weakly-aspected planet. I would say that this is actually a more common reality than the other-way-around. Here are just a few, because the examples are endless:

Ted Turner arose with "Mercury-on-Ascendant" in Atlanta.
His Mercury is well-aspected, with a good sextile to Jupiter, and a strong sextile to Mars, among other things. The Turner wordiness easily comes to mind here.

Stephen King, the enormously successful writer, lives with Mercury-IC.
His Mercury is loaded with traditional major aspects.

Johnny Carson in Burbank had three planets close to angles,
all heavy with traditional aspects.

Paul McCartney -- probably the most successful pop star in the world -- lives with the "Sun-MH" and...
McCartney's Sun has a very clear square to Neptune. Also, his Sun is applying to a conjunction with Jupiter (5 degrees), which fits very well his extaordinary performance energy, charisma, creative output, and general worldly success.

Sylvester Stallone came to fame in New York, with a "Jupiter-MH."
Stallone's Jupiter is rich in traditional aspects.

Then Stallone moved to California after his first "Rocky" movie and put Mars into his new Tenth, about five degrees from the midheaven.
Stallone's Mars has an applying square to Uranus, and a sextile to the Sun.

Q. So he proceeds to build a career based on action movies with Mars themes.
a.Certainly. It's easy to see how that worked. While in New York, Stallone had a strongly-aspected Jupiter up near MH along with Moon. The Jupiter accounted for the lucky breaks in general, and also injected a "good guy" Sagittarian vibe  into his first movie. The Moon, over New York, brought us his Cancerian girlfriend in the first movie and the sense of an intimate view of home life. This is just a comment about the fascination of locational charts in general. Then he goes to Hollywood where his Mars occupies Tenth. So his movies run on in with incredibly Mars-oriented, warlike themes.

So Couteau is telling us that weakly-aspected planets draw us to a location, and bring success. But let's look at Stallone's Jupiter and Moon (New York) and his Mars (Hollywood).
 

Stallone had Moon near MH in New York. His natal Moon is clearly:

square Saturn  conjunct Jupiter  sextile Venus  trine Uranus  and is square Sun.

Stallone had Jupiter near MH in New York. His natal Jupiter is clearly:

conjunct his Moon  square Sun  sextile Venus  square Saturn, and  trine Uranus.

In New York he had these well-aspected planets, Jupiter and Moon, near midheaven and became a rags-to-riches phenomenon. Then when he moves to California, he gets the Mars-10, which shows up on an astrocartography map as a "Mars-MH line." But Stallone's Mars has a healthy sextile to the Sun, and is in an applying square to powerful Uranus. So again his locational, angular planet -- this one in L.A. -- is well-fed by strong aspects.

Q. This view makes a lot more sense than the Couteau idea, actually...It seems you would lean on a strong planet rather than a weak one.
a. The idea that strong aspecting makes a planet more potent and useful, is a venerable, well-tried astrological observation. A "well-aspected" planet is more "coherent" and potent. It is integrated with other parts of the personality; a part of "the loop" of the larger personality; better-connected. So leaning on it, or using it, gives stronger results and, to the native, more meaningful activities. It's common in my work that when a client is in work they find meaningless, usually a poorly-aspected planet will be found to be ruling their locational career house. When the client is well-engaged with a meaningful career, you'll find a strongly aspected planet in charge of the career house. This is nothing surprising, and is a very old concept.

In reality, successful people tend to "lean on" their stronger limbs; not their weaker limbs. Check out Oprah Winfrey in Chicago: She has Jupiter near the midheaven and her Jupiter strongly aspected with traditional aspects.

The Couteau material does not put a dent in this ancient principle, and actually, I think, does us all an intellectual disservice. The fact that many prominent astrologers are ga-ga over this stuff doesn't speak well for the mentality of astrologers today. But then most astrologers live in fluff-land.

Q. I cauld see how the Couteau theory could lead people to run off intentionally to live by "astrocartography" lines of their weak planets.

a. Well, that's true. I have people contacting me -- people new to astrology -- saying:  "Should I be moving to my 'least aspected planet' line?" Honestly! People are seeing the Couteau stuff  spammed all over the net. Babes in the woods, they are! Such a least-aspected strategy, if truly pursued, would probably amount to a minimalization of one's life.

So there are astrologers who spin theories, and there are astrologers who actually work in the trenches of peoples' lives. Although I love theories, I am in the latter category of astrologers. And I get good results with my clients by having them capitalize on their strengths.(I have famous clients, too, and they're not dead people.)

Another embarrassing problem with the Couteau material is that it ignores the famous, influential people who live away from conventional astrocartography lines.

Q. I've always wondered about that. Can you give some examples?
a.Easy: Bill Gates of Microsoft lives in an astrocartography "empty place" in the Seattle area.  Deepak Chopra, who has permeated the world, lives about as far from an astrocartography line as he could be. Another example would be Ronald Reagan, who was not near any "lines" while serving a long, popular presidency in Washington D.C.

Q. I seem to recall astrocartography literature as saying that these "empty" areas are where not much goes on. That does seem a little strange.
a.Well, realize that no location is ever empty of major astrological influences. It only seems that way when you look at an astrocartography map. Chopra's Neptune-Jupiter-Sun in the San Diego money house is key to his financial success. But it doesn't show on an ACG map. (His Delhi  natal chart has no planets in the Money House.) His Mars-Mercury-Venus in his locational 3rd House brought his development as a prolific writer and effective communicator. Chopra took on Uranus-in-Tenth by living in San Diego. Read natal cookbooks going back years and you'll see it linked to the high-profile esoteric philosopher. Again, none of this shows up on an astrocartography map. So there actually are no "empty" areas, as astrocartography maps imply. We could say that Reagan was very protected in Washington by his  Sagittarius Rising there, which was ruled from Twelfth. It gave him that ever-smiling, optimistic personality. Everything in a Relocated Natal Chart is important--not just four house cusps.

It's far better to look at the entire relocated natal chart to really understand a location. Anyone who gives a reading based on a linemap, I feel, is only playing with your life. The Couteau material keeps locational knowledge down to the level of linemaps, which is unfortunate for all astrology.

To go to an earlier section of this Interview, click Interview1.