Gjiada wrote: But you would not implement Placido under the pole before TPD ?
I became mad to have them in Kolev's Placidus, the pole is right, the arc too and still I cannot have the same result.
I have the same positions for planets but I was unsuccessful for aspects, I don't understand Kolev
And under the pole directions are very easy to calculate, you will add in Morinus? please...... They almost just use those in CieloeTerra...

margherita

I have a hungarian book about the Placidus(underthepole)(UTP). I agree that the calculations are not so difficult. The only thing keeping me from implementing it is the mundane PDs:
- Mundane Parallel(MP)
- Rapt Parallel(RP)
These are not discussed in that book, but I suspect that they should be calculated in case of UTP too.
I haven't had much time to think about it but I think that:
in case of the MP(MC) the pole should be reflected over the MC.
in case of RP(MC) the two planets should be moved till their poles are the same(MC) !?

I am having difficult times now, so at least the definitions of the MP and RP in case of UTP should be sent to me(the algorithms would be better).

The other problem is that I have no windows no, and I have to wait(couldn't build the windows executable(MorinusWinEng)).

The UTP calculation in th Kolev-Placidus should be correct, it must have been tested many times.

rob

rob wrote:
The UTP calculation in th Kolev-Placidus should be correct, it must have been tested many times.

rob

I cannot have aspects, the rest - planetary positions, pole, oblique ascension/descension under the pole is in agreement with my notes.

I could translate and send you my notes, but my problem is I'm not sure that in CieloeTerra they do as in the rest in the world

Maybe I can write to Martin and Martin can check?

margherita

Gjiada wrote: I cannot have aspects, the rest - planetary positions, pole, oblique ascension/descension under the pole is in agreement with my notes.

margherita

Now I understand what you mean. The positions/speculum in Morinus doesn't show aspects either. That would complicate things ...

Well, the mundane parallels wouldn't be so hard, but I had problems with the rapt parallels(Placidus(semiarcus)). This is why it hasn't been implemented yet.

When I have time(and access to a Windows-computer), I will implement the UTP acc. to that hungarian book. Your way of calculating PDs is not easy for me to comprehend(but you can send me your algorithms). Please be patient
It won't be better than the UTP in the Placidus

I don't know what Martin thinks, you should discuss it with him.

rob

TransmaniaconMC wrote:Yes, it does make one think and it makes SENSE as to why (as you say) they were discontinued. If the system CAN'T make those types of claims, then the system isn't so useful. (both in comparison and inherently so)

No, that's not the way it happened. The whole tradition of predictive astrology (which consisted of several interlocking techniques, with primary directions as one of the most important) declined in 19th century Britain (it had been long gone on the Continent) and was gradually replaced with the Theosophized astrology of Alan Leo and others. Directions disappeared, not because they weren't good enough to predict with, but because prediction fell out of fashion among students of astrology -- who were increasingly of an esoteric rather than a mathematical bent.

Rob: I may be completely off here, but: as Placidean mundane aspects (and mundane/rapt parallels) are based wholly on proportional semi-arcs, and no actual aspect point is being directed, I don't see how such directions could be performed using circles of position ('under the pole').

Martin Gansten wrote:Rob: I may be completely off here, but: as Placidean mundane aspects (and mundane/rapt parallels) are based wholly on proportional semi-arcs, and no actual aspect point is being directed, I don't see how such directions could be performed using circles of position ('under the pole').

I see. This is good news.
I thought that there was an analogy, but I was wrong.

rob

Martin Gansten wrote:Rob: I may be completely off here, but: as Placidean mundane aspects (and mundane/rapt parallels) are based wholly on proportional semi-arcs, and no actual aspect point is being directed, I don't see how such directions could be performed using circles of position ('under the pole').

I have other formulae in fact for under the pole directions, not the semiarcus method.

In practice the difference between their oblique ascensions/descension under the pole of the significator.

If you would check my formulae then I could send to Rob.

From your book - data of the example chart are withheld - or Kolev I can't understand if we use the same method.

For a part I think yes, because my data are in agreement with Kolev, but I cannot have directions to aspects with Kolev's Placidus, for me it's very difficult, full of planets, minor points, converse directions, i can't understand like that

margherita

rob wrote:I see. This is good news.
I thought that there was an analogy, but I was wrong.

Well, I confess that I am not 100% certain; I just don't see what a 'mundane parallel under the pole' would mean. It would be nice to get a definite answer from someone conversant with all the niceties of Placidean technique.

Margherita: perhaps you could give an example chart with a direction under the pole calculated by your formulae, step by step? I'd be happy to check if it agrees with my calculations.

Martin Gansten wrote: Margherita: perhaps you could give an example chart with a direction under the pole calculated by your formulae, step by step? I'd be happy to check if it agrees with my calculations.

Surely I want

Tomorrow I will send you. Thanks so much

margherita

Hello Martin,

Fascinating!

The point can still be made that if the people using them were having very accurate results, then the technique would have had a much lower potential of dying off. As they seem to be a core part of many traditional approaches, and obviously the topic of many great astrologers, then there HAS to be some way to get to the bottom of it all and have a system that works and with SOME level of specificity.

I am for all studies into this. It's good for everybody. This board seems popular...or let's say frequented, and there must be relative experts in various systems HERE and of a participatorial bent. It should be possible to take each of the systems and examine a life across MANY EVENTS and see how things stand up. I am open to learn something!

TransmaniaconMC

TransmaniaconMC wrote:The point can still be made that if the people using them were having very accurate results, then the technique would have had a much lower potential of dying off.

The point can be made, but it won't stand up to historical scrutiny. The parts of astrology that survived the great simplification process of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were not the most accurate ones, but the least demanding ones (like the emphasis on Sun signs). A few technical-minded astrologers on the Continent did pick up some of the more advanced bits (like primary directions), but after WW II there were very few of them left.

Speaking personally, my objection is not (mainly) to the Topocentric system of houses and directions as such, but to the many new planets and aspects used. I emphatically agree on the need for accurate symbolism, but to me that means using the astrological symbols agreed upon by astrologers for the past two millennia. If Topocentric directions could be seen consistently to produce Mars directions (to classical significators, with classical aspects) for Mars events, and Venus directions for Venus events, to the day or even month, I would gladly forget my mathematical objections to the system.

Hello Martin,

I've just sent an example to your @. Let me know if you don't receive it.

margherita