The matter of orbs has always been a confusing one.

No other factor 1: produced such

differences of opinion, except the method for determining the intermediate houses of the
horoscope. It is obvious that there must some regulatory process to establish a degree of
reliability. The customary method has been to use an orb of 8° for the conjunction, square,
trine,
a opposition, 4° for the sextile, and 2° for the inconjunct. An additional 2° is allowed when
the
Sun or Moon is involved in the aspect.
However, we do not adhere to this use of orbs nor to the doctrine that there exists a
point at which an effect begins or ends with some degree certainty. We prefer to compare the
effect of aspects to the sound of approaching aircraft; the sound grows steadily from the
moment it initially perceived, is loudest when directly overhead, and fades as the plane
vanishes
in the distance. This effect can be overpowered by the sound o locomotive passing at close
range, but this does not deny the sound or l presence of the passing aircraft. It simply makes
the
reception me confusing and difficult to isolate. We have come to use a 6° orb for aspects
except
the inconjunct, for which we use an orb of 3°. We extend the orb to 8° when the Sun, Moon,
or
Ascendant is involved, except with the inconjunct, for which we maintain the 3° orb. Even in
this orb assignment, we remain flexible to the "fading" effect of a planetary configuration.
We
abhor the extreme application of this theory, however, which allows anything to be "read"
into
an aspect. We have observed astrologers who use orbs so wide that the aspect could have
been
equally a square or a trine! This we regard as irresponsible and completely indefensible. The
astrologer must exercise good judgment based on the available variables.
Every factor in a chart is inextricably tied to every other factor, and thispp