Other trick to using Concept on XP or Vista is install VMwareWork station, in him system W98,in which Concept work.Calculation is much faster.Dosbox is slow.

Petr wrote:Other trick to using Concept on XP or Vista is install VMwareWork station, in him system W98,in which Concept work.Calculation is much faster.Dosbox is slow.

Good tip (if one can find a win 98 install disk). Thanks!

Hello again Martin
Maybe I haven't understood something here, but aren't you talking about zodiacal primaries and not strict Placidian mundo ones, when you say:

Assuming for simplicity's sake that the Moon as significator is on the ecliptic, at, let us say, 12? Aries in the 10th house, the question is: do we measure the semi-arc of 12? Aries or that of the Moon (which perhaps rose at 9? Aries, and will culminate at 13? Aries)?

Kolev defines as a mundo primary as "to bring the Promissor to the same proportional position in regards to the horizon and the meridian (same mundo position) as the one which the Significator had at the birth moment."
So isn't it this mundo position, the azimuth and altitude (of the significator, i.e. the factor which is being directed towards, since definitions of significator/promissor sometimes seem to be the opposite of Kolev's) which we must measure to (or to a parallel thereof)? In the example you give, this was the mundo position at which the moon found itself at birth, and not the moon's later position, and certainly not 12? Aries, which I don't think has anything to do with it, unless we're talking about zodiacal directions (Kolev: "Here we direct the ecliptical projections of the planets...").
As you've worked on this quite a bit, I'd be interested to know which key you find most efficient for mundo directions (I've so far found Ptolemy/1?=1yr seems best, but natal solar rate also sometimes seems good. Naibod less so).
Thanks for any views.
Graham

Hello Graham,

Maybe I haven't understood something here, but aren't you talking about zodiacal primaries and not strict Placidian mundo ones

What I said relates to either, or both. The semi-arc method is the same; the only difference between zodiacal and mundane directions is whether or not to take latitude into consideration (for planets other than the Sun).

So isn't it this mundo position [...] which we must measure to (or to a parallel thereof)?

We direct a promissor to a point in its own semi-arc that corresponds to the position natally held by the significator in its own semi-arc.

In the example you give, this was the mundo position at which the moon found itself at birth, and not the moon's later position, and certainly not 12? Aries, which I don't think has anything to do with it, unless we're talking about zodiacal directions

I chose to visualize the Moon on the ecliptic to avoid any difference between the mundane and zodiacal directions, and focus instead on the secondary motion. Naturally we are interested in the Moon's natal position, but in relation to its own semi-arc. And this may differ somewhat depending on whether we measure the semi-arc of the point occupied by the Moon at birth, or the observable semi-arc of the Moon (from its rising to its culmination, in this case).

As you've worked on this quite a bit, I'd be interested to know which key you find most efficient for mundo directions (I've so far found Ptolemy/1?=1yr seems best, but natal solar rate also sometimes seems good. Naibod less so).

I sometimes find Ptolemy the closer match, sometimes Naibod. I have not found the keys of Brahe or Placidus to be very reliable.

Martin
Thanks for the clarifications. I can see you're right about what constitutes a zodiacal direction, though I'm still not convinced that allowing secondary motion for the factor which is supposed to stay "fixed" (the significator) is the best approach. I'll have to try it.
Graham

Graham,

Thanks for the clarifications. I can see you're right about what constitutes a zodiacal direction, though I'm still not convinced that allowing secondary motion for the factor which is supposed to stay "fixed" (the significator) is the best approach. I'll have to try it.

Do. But please note that the significator stays fixed in either case. If it had completed, say, 75% of its semi-arc at birth, then any promissor will have to be directed to a point 75% along its own semi-arc in order to conjunct it. If the significator had completed 80%, then 80% it is. The only question is how to determine that percentage (or proportion) in the first place.

Martin
Sorry, I've lost you. You said you favoured including secondary motion for the significator as well as the promissor, when calculating directions. If the significator (e.g. Moon) has completed 75% of it's semi-arc at birth, and Jupiter, for example, has only completed 45% of its own semi-arc, Jupiter must move 30% more along its own semi arc before it gets to where the Moon was at birth. But if, in the meantime, we've allowed for Moon's secondary motion (while Jupiter is catching up), but not Moon's primary motion (because it is the significator), then when Jupiter makes a direction to Moon, Moon will have moved by just over 1? on the ecliptic (depending on length of the daytime, etc), and will thus have retrograded by something a bit more or less than 1? in its mundo position (relative to meridian and horizon). It would thus have completed less than 74% of its semi-arc (less than it had at birth) when the direction by promissor Jupiter was achieved. That's why I thought we had to leave the secondary motion of the significator out of our calculations. What have I misunderstood?
Thanks
Graham

Graham,

I see now where we have misunderstood each other. Let me try to exemplify the approach I favour, using zodiacal directions for simplicity's sake (the principle is the same even when including latitude):

In my chart, the natal Moon is at 18?56' Libra in the 1st house, i.e., between the IC and the Asc. In the usual method for finding the Moon's (zodiacal) nocturnal semi-arc, the Moon is imagined to be stationary at this point, and the NSA is simply the time passed between its lower culmination (18?56' Libra on the IC) and its rising (18?56' Libra on the Asc), expressed in degrees of RA passing over the meridian. The Moon's natal position is then defined relative to this semi-arc.

But if we look to see when the Moon was really conjunct the IC prior to birth, we find that it was at 14?35' Libra; and when it rose some time after birth, it was at 19?54' Libra. The Moon's NSA can therefore be calculated as the time between these two points (14?35' Libra on the IC and 19?54' Libra on the Asc), again expressed in degrees of RA passing over the meridian. This semi-arc is longer than the one above, and the Moon's natal position (which remains unchanged at 18?56' Libra) relative to it will differ somewhat.

Once again, the principle will be the same if we include latitude (and my experience suggests that we should). I hope this example makes my intentions clearer.

Martin
I can vaguely make out that there's a logic in what you're proposing, so maybe in a while it'll come clear.
I'm trying to think how what you're saying translates to actually looking at the sky, or to looking at a modeled sky in an astronomy program. I think it still means that (in my example) we would consider the direction of Jupiter to Moon to be accomplished when Jupiter arrived a bit before (in local space) the place where the the Moon was at birth. This still bothers me, so for now I think I'll stick to the angles as significators... Looking forward to you book on primaries !
Graham

Graham,

I can vaguely make out that there's a logic in what you're proposing, so maybe in a while it'll come clear.

I hope so. I made it as clear as I could...

I'm trying to think how what you're saying translates to actually looking at the sky, or to looking at a modeled sky in an astronomy program.

That is exactly what I want us to do, and that means using the actual rising, setting and culmination times of the planets for calculating their semi-arcs. If we use those times, we are in fact taking secondary motion into consideration.

I think it still means that (in my example) we would consider the direction of Jupiter to Moon to be accomplished when Jupiter arrived a bit before (in local space) the place where the the Moon was at birth.

Well -- no. Actually, Jupiter will never arrive at the place where the Moon was at birth. It will merely arrive at a point in its own semi-arc which we decide corresponds to the natal place of the Moon, and my point is that for both the semi-arcs (that of the Moon and that of Jupiter), we should use the real rising, setting and culmination times. (Rumen Kolev's software, which was where this sub-topic began, does this only for the promissor, and that is what I objected to.)

Looking forward to you book on primaries !

Thanks.

Martin
Thanks for clarification. It would help me to try to specify how this could be worked out in the sky or with an astronomy program. This is laborious, but I hope correct. Part of the trouble is trying to think in terms of time rather than of space:

Suppose a direction of Jupiter (promissor) in III to Moon (significator) in I (i.e. both between IC and ASC):
A- find time of Moon's lower culmination
B- find time of Moon's rising
C- subtract A from B to get time of Moon's total semi-arc between lower culmination and rising
D- subtract A from natal time to get time-length of natal semi-arc
E- divide D by C to get percentage equivalent of natal arc time in relation to total semi-arc time
F- find Jupiter's lower culmination time
G- find J's rising time
H- subtract F from G to get time of J's total semi-arc between lower culmination and rising
I- work out time-period corresponding to same percentage (E) of J's total semi-arc time (H) as represented by Moon's natal arc time (D) in relation to Moon's total semi-arc (C) (HxE/100)
J- convert this time period (so many hours, minutes and seconds) into years using used your favoured key: hey presto, you've got the date of the direction!
OK?
Thanks
Graham

Martin
Me again. In my example above, can we use setting time to rising time(instead of lower culmination to rising) to work out the semi-arc which we're looking for a proportion of? i.e. semi-arc of the whole day or night period, and not just half of those periods? This would help when looking for interplanetary directions which cross the meridian, but would it cause different values for the MC and IC depending on whether we're using time-based or space-based arcs (and by impliaction, house sytems)?
Thanks for any illumination.
Graham