Martin Gansten wrote:

3D wrote:You are right of course, just leave out the ?in mundo?. Mea culpa

Phew! I won't have to rewrite that book, then.

I look forward to buy that book. Or maybe we could organize a seminar in Rome, as you are doing in London (I'm very envious).

I'm so confused about primary directions, The same formula used by in CieloeTerra book for mundane directions, elsewhere it's called zodiacal and planets are used without latitude.

At the moment I have no hope, because I believe there is something unclear starting from formulae.

Margherita

If Cielo and Terra is so Ptolemy oriented as it seem, I would guess they are using the zodiacal formula.

yuzuru wrote:If Cielo and Terra is so Ptolemy oriented as it seem, I would guess they are using the zodiacal formula.

But the point is that Marco Fumagalli, who is the author of ALL the mathematical part of CieloeTerra call them "in mundo" , giving formulae and examples.

For the zodiacal directions they use "mixed" ascensions, I don't know how I can translate this word in English, the oblique ascension or descension under the pole of the planet.

I really don't know.

Just I have a question for Martin: are you following Kolev book or your researches are independent?

Margherita

Gjiada wrote:Just I have a question for Martin: are you following Kolev book or your researches are independent?

I've read more or less everything I have been able to find on primary directions over the years, including Kolev, but I don't 'follow' anyone. I suppose I have a problem with authority! (Or let us call it an independent mind.) Kolev's got the calculations right, though -- as have many others, of course. But his definitions of terms (significator/promissor, direct/converse) are not strictly traditional.

My guess would be that the CieloeTerra author uses 'mundane' simply in the sense of 'based on real motion in the sky' (as opposed to 'symbolic' directions), but takes planetary positions without latitude (i.e., in zodiaco).

'Mixed ascensions' is the semi-arc method, which is neither right ascension (used only for directions to the meridian) nor oblique ascension (used only for directions to the horizon), but something in between.

Oh, and:

Gjiada wrote:I look forward to buy that book. Or maybe we could organize a seminar in Rome, as you are doing in London (I'm very envious).

Thank you, I'd be happy to! But be warned that my Italian is non-existent. (The UK event will be in Nottingham, not London. And I'll be in Bath in June, speaking on a different subject.)

I'm so confused about primary directions, The same formula used by in CieloeTerra book for mundane directions, elsewhere it's called zodiacal and planets are used without latitude.

I've calculated my own primary directions using several methods. With a bit imagination I manage to find 'hit' dates for every system and every time key. This makes me doubt strongly if they really 'work'.

My apologies for such a remark over here but they (and secondary progressions either) don't convince me like transits do. Moreover there is much less confusion about transits apart from the question if they should be precession corrected.

Martin Gansten wrote: My guess would be that the CieloeTerra author uses 'mundane' simply in the sense of 'based on real motion in the sky' (as opposed to 'symbolic' directions), but takes planetary positions without latitude (i.e., in zodiaco).

As usually I was not clear.

For what they call "in mundo" they use hourly distance between two points and day or night hours according which hemisphere we are talking about.
And they use LATITUDE.
To me it makes sense it's called "in mundo" because they consider planets as they are according their positions in houses.

It was elsewhere in the Internet that I saw the same formula used without latitude - taking planets with their longitude but as they were on the ecliptic, without latitude, and that was called "zodiacal direction."

It's confusing at least for me.

About "mixed directions" I believe it should be Placidus, in CieloeTerra they love Placidus more than Ptolemy.
I hope I can understand your book Kolev surely is the genius of directions but he can't write. At least I cannot understand him.
I don't know in the rest of world, but in Italy the most important lessons at schools are the ones of Italian, whatever kind of school you are attending.
When you finish school at 18, you should be able to write an article.

I'd be happy to! But be warned that my Italian is non-existent. (The UK event will be in Nottingham, not London. And I'll be in Bath in June, speaking on a different subject.)

So it should be like my English.
Well, maybe we can organize something. Inside the Italian Astrological association they are trying to see a little abroad, and Deborah will come next SAturday in Perugia. I will see if it is possible, I would be happy

Margherita

To me it makes sense it's called "in mundo" because they consider planets as they are according their positions in houses.

Even if latitude is not taken into account it could be considered to be "in mundo". After all the same squeezing and stretching of the planetary positions occur. A trine on the ecliptic still can become a square in the mundane positions if the latitude won't be taken into account.

Eddy wrote:
Even if latitude is not taken into account it could be considered to be "in mundo".

Ok, but if so why I have a formula where planets are considered with their longitude and latitude and their position in the houses and this formula is called "in mundo"?

Then I find in the Internet from other experts the same method and calculation, but with planets without latitude and it's called "zodiacal."

Then you write that the same calculation without latitude could be called "in mundo" too.

There is something I don't understand, or everything is clear for you?

Margherita

I'm sorry Margherita if I contributed to the confusion rather than be clarifying. Mundo refers to positioning the planets in respect to a certain house system, especially those which incorporate the horizon and meridian.

In that case it would be more logic to take latitude into account and 'leave' the ecliptic totally. However one could imagine using positions with 0 latitude but in that case the 'mundo effect' would be gone in a sense that the ecliptical degree of a planet can be on the horizon or in the meridian but the planet usually won't be. So it seems better to me to take latitude into account when doing or using the name 'mundo'

I don't use computerprograms and didn't read books on the calculations but the confusion could stem from the fact that some astrologers aren't familiar with the terminology or the astronomy. In fact I learnt many calculations myself and applied it years before I knew the difference of the terminology for example between ascensional difference and oblique ascension even when I had been applying these.

Eddy wrote:I'm sorry Margherita if I contributed to the confusion rather than be clarifying. Mundo refers to positioning the planets in respect to a certain house system, especially those which incorporate the horizon and meridian.

In the context of primary directions, the traditional usage of the terms is clear (and different from what you just wrote, Eddy):

In mundo 'in the world' or cum latitudine 'with latitude' means using the observable positions of the planets.

In zodiaco 'in the zodiac' or sine latitudine 'without latitude' means using the ecliptical (longitudinal) degrees of the planets.

Primary directions to the angles are based on actual risings, setting, culminations and anti-culminations. Directions between planets or other points are based either on proportional semi-arcs (Ptolemy, Placidus) or on circles of position (Regiomontanus, though there is also a 'hybrid' form of Placidean circles of position based on semi-arcs). In neither case are primary directions based on one's choice of house system. This is a common misunderstanding. One may choose to direct planets and divide the sky into houses by the same method (both Placidus and Regiomontanus did), but it is by no means necessary. Ptolemy certainly didn't do so, nor did the medieval astrologers.

Eddy wrote:I'm sorry Margherita if I contributed to the confusion rather than be clarifying.

It's not your fault. You tried to help,

Mundo refers to positioning the planets in respect to a certain house system, especially those which incorporate the horizon and meridian.

It's exactly because I don't understand why we can consider planets in their position in respect to MC (hourly distance) without latitude and we call this a zodiacal direction.

I'm not an expert, so maybe I'm mssing something...

Margherita