Course you're all clique-y now, Martin, I mentioned you at FreakyFortuneTeller - LOL. Actually I did.

Most people in the astrological world wouldn't really consider that a sign of having 'arrived', though.

And God knows if there's a clique around here, I ain't part of it.

A question to those who insist that birth charts must be rectified to the second for accurate predictions:

Have I just got supernaturally lucky with my own chart (and Mercury was combust, retrograde, conjunct the South Node, and opposite Jupiter when I was born - talk about mistake-prone!), and the same with my clients?

I don't use PDs as the sole predictive technique. I do run them, and keep an eye on them, but I'm more likely to use direction of the ascendant by term (I think that counts as a primary direction) plus firdaria - Al Biruni style, not the one with the nodes in the middle for night births as a primary predictive tool. Not the only one, but the one I look at first - and you know what? It works all by itself.

Now while I do not try to time predictions to the day, once in a while they have been to the day. On more than one occasion they've beeen within a week or so. And this has been specific stuff, like certain kinds of accidents.

These are charts that I have not tried to rectify - just taken as is.

How did the ancient astrologers do it? Cos they made predictions using primaries, too, and had lots of successes, and if that can't happen without a birth chart timed to the second.....uhh....I'm way confused.

Blind luck and coincidence? I'm thinking not.

As to some of the perceived animosity, guys, you're in the traditional techniques forum. There's lots of places on skyscript to discuss non-traditional astrology.

There's almost noplace anywhere for us traditional geeks to talk to each other. But there is here.

Hello Martin

Martin Gansten wrote:
2. Why so many charts with 'data withheld'? To offer a measure of privacy to the people who kindly allowed me to use their charts. The charts are not there to prove some point or other, or to demonstrate the Only True System; they are simply illustrations of the (traditional) methods of primary directions. There is therefore no need to check their validity. I expect readers to test the methods discussed against charts of their own; I know I would have.

I don't agree here.
Many bought the book searching practical examples to work with, we are not trying to search validity of primary directions or of your calculations.

As you presented it's difficult to understand the method you used - I know formulae are in the Appendix I but.....

I believe I'm going to write in my blog some famous examples in a couple of days...

Anyway I would give 9 out of 10 to your book, I liked it very much.

p.s. Ju0Spica:
here we know quite well that from positions of planets we can know the date and from Moon and Ascendant we can know the time, but what about the latitude? I don't even have a house table....pc generation

margherita

I didn?t think there was anything self-centred about Isaac?s post, and I didn?t find it too harsh either. Isaac is someone who has purchased and read the book. He has a particular interest in the subject, a knowledge of some of the issues, and a view to share. There are some critical elements in his discussion, but his post seems thoughtful and balanced in its tone.

The fact that it was followed up by CentralScrutinizer?s, where he tries to push his own technique forward and makes presumed criticisms, made it seem like Isaac?s post was a problem, when in fact it never is a problem to have different shades of opinion in this forum.

Note that the most controversial posts have come from people who have either not got the book, not read the book, or make posts where the book isn?t even mentioned (two such posts have been removed, just as the provocative graphic was removed, as doing nothing but adding heat into a discussion that some people seem to want to turn flaming).

I?m locking the thread for a short while so the heat can cool a little.

Hi

According to Wim Van Dam people tend to confuse primary directions with solar arc directions.
Solar Arcs are not primaries! They are totally different!

With solar arcs every planet is given the same solar arc degrees in forwarded position. Primary positions depend on the house the radical planet is in. In Van Dam's system the primary motion is based on the Placidean arc.

To make it clear what I say, assume that a planet is axackt placed on cusp 3 of a radix chart. Now calculate the same chart an hour later. Then you will see that all house cusps have moved on. Now, in a primary chart the primary planet will move the same distance as the cusp it was positioned on. Hence in the primary chart it is still on cusp 3.

Regards

http://www.astrosoftware.com/WimvanDam.htm

According to Wim Van Dam people tend to confuse primary directions with solar arc directions.

Really? Thats surprising. Its odd considering the two techniques have absolutely nothing in common. I guess it must be the tendency to sometimes call them Solar Arc 'directions'. Still, even then you would need to be a real babe in the woods to confuse them.

Mark

Really? Thats surprising. Its odd considering the two techniques have absolutely nothing in common. I guess it must be the tendency to sometimes call them Solar Arc 'directions'. Still, even then you would need to be a real babe in the woods to confuse them.

Kolev made the same observation in his booklets. It's probably due to both techniques using the word "directions." Until Kolev wrote his program, how many people even knew what primary directions were? But most would know solar arc directions.

Having finished reading this thread, I haven't seen the distinction between local space and universal space which I find useful when trying to understand primary directions. Makransky makes this distinction and says that local space involves the horizon, meridian and prime vertical. These great circles never change with respect to the observer.

The theoretical premise is that the hours after birth represent what happens years later, with 1 degree = 1 year for Ptolemy, and other keys, as stated from Gansten's recent text... Given this theoretical premise, I don't see the validity of converse directions, because to get those you have to reverse the rotation to say that the hours before birth represent in reverse order what happens later in life. Mixing up the significators and promissors is just going to muddy up the understanding which has already happened centuries past.

To define local/universal space more precisely, one could say that the great circles of the horizon, prime vertical and meridian which stays constant with respect to the observer is local space. One can think of this space as extending an arbitrary distance, say 100 miles above the earth for the sake of visualization to create a "local sphere" whereas the universal space which includes the ecliptic, celestial equator, etc extends out to infinity. With this frame of reference, it seems clearer to think of significators as existing in local space (being pinned on the local sphere) and promissors as existing in universal space (being pinned on the celestial sphere), because the various properties of an observer (such as marriage, career, etc as shown by house cusps in local space) is set up to receive what is promised from the celestial sphere from universal space.

What then would be the theoretical reason for the basis of converse directions?

I'm finally back on the subject of primary directions and am taking requests, but will probably start with the Alchabitius semi arc method first...

Now this old thread has been revived I think I could ask my question here, but maybe it's beyond the purpose of the thread and somewhat too speculative.

In Bruce Scofield's article 'Making time out of Space', I read about an idea of Robert hand about some possible origins of primary directions. http://alabe.com/text/PERIODS.html

footnote (9) wrote:In his introduction to Book IV of Vettius Valens, Rob Hand suggests that these systems were the roots of later systems, including primary directions. He sees the development of predictive systems in astrology in the following sequence:

1. Integral time-units by themselves only indirectly based on spatial units. (Planetary Periods and Dasas)

2. Integral time-units directly related to space-units. (Directions)

3. Integral time units related to other time units. (Progressions).

Can someone affirm this, or is it somewhat speculative.

Reading in articles about early Babylonian astronomy/astrology, I read that it was quite difficult to calculate ephemerides. The usual method was using ?goal-years? but for the dates in-between interpolation had to be done. Although transits were mentioned by Ptolemy and I can imagine that they were used before him, perhaps they weren?t used so much because the interpolation was a bit too laborious. The year numbers of some time lords systems are related to the goal-years so maybe it was considered as an easier technique, only to be ?technified? in later years. I wonder whether the concept of goal-years could also have been a source of inspiration for solar returns.

Although I understand most calculations, I never get used to the terminology. (well... its better than the other way round).

What then would be the theoretical reason for the basis of converse directions?

Unless the basis of primary directions is turning space into time is used (1 space degree =1 year) there's no theoretical reason to use converse I think. If the basis of pd's is turning time to time (1 time degree = 1 year) which is the traditional view I believe, then only the normal (non converse) would sound reasonable to me.

Likewise, if "converse" is taken in the modern meaning of going against the direction of diurnal motion. I still don't understand Martin's historical definition of the word, though. Probably because I came up through modern primaries where significator is the point to which you direct, and promissor is the point that is moved in the directions of diurnal motion. The historical use that Martin describes appears to define those terms differently and independently of which end of the arc they occupy.

- Ed

I'm trying to get a group of the most important primary systems to include in software, but I don't want to do it the same way I've seen in other software because some points were clearly not meant to be used (such as latitude of significators with promissors of no latitude) which is indeed possible with some software but probably violates the philosophical principles that were intended by their authors. To expand these is going to result in exponential growth that already can be used to explain any event in life (just look at Janus for example which has a list of aspects as long as the list of significators and promissior which also includes hypotheticals). So instead, I'm thinking of sticking to "author options", not just because of the exponential increase in the numbers of directions, but because in most software it is not clear what system you are using when you select options of latitude for promissor, significator, whether to use in mundo, in zodiaco, whether to use ptolemy, naibod, placidus keys and so on... To just make random selections you could come up with directions that would never exist in any historical setting and using a set of options by author would also make it more usable for novices who don't understand the math involved.

Makransky's text explains oblique ascensions (I already programmed that in Delphic Oracle according to the method of Dorotheus of directing the ascendant through the bounds) and right ascensions for the MC which are really easy, but then gets into field plane directions which looks to me like a modern approach. I've only had this text for a few days and if anybody is familiar with it, I'd appreciate it if someone would point out where he does planet to planet directions. I suppose one could just look at each of the chapters on houses and backform this for each direction type because a point on a house cusp is essentially a planet with a mundane position (as shown my Makransky's formula's for mundane position) I would think that a planets mundane position can be found using the same formula depending upon the house system, but it hasn't fully sunk in yet...

I've noticed that some seem to use primaries for rectification, but keep in mind that many authors such as Valens said that the grand techniques such as ascensions (from which primary directions are derived because of Ptolemy's objections to using oblique ascension for planets not on the ascendant - which is not astronomically accurate motion of which I agree) were meant to find the year when something would happen and that other methods should be used to fine tune the month and day. This is to say that I think that timing primary directions to the hour misses the point in the same way that measuring the change in zodiacal ages to the 100th of a second misses the point of what an age is. To say that one age gives way to another on Dec 21, 2012 at 2:33:14.123456789 am UTC is similar to the kind of error in overstating the accuracy of the mathematics in a formula for calculating the eccentricity of the orbit of Chiron prior to Christ. Valens seems to have had in mind delegation of authority so that the gods of the celestials would determine the year, the gods of the planetary realm the month and the gods of the earthly realm the day and so on (this is just a mataphor not to be taken precisely). The president didn't dictate what I had for breakfast this morning, and the primary direction didn't dictate what day Delphic Oracle was released, but only the year.

For this reason, exploding the variations in primary directions and trying to determine which method is more accurate by seeing how close they time is missing the point because if it is within the year of the natives solar return, then it is a "hit". We are trying to render the live of the native "intelligible" and as Tom said one can go crazy with all of the different ways this can be done. This is why philosophical first principles are so important, without them they threaten to fracture this art (I was going to say "discipline" but that wouldn't be particularly accurate as astrology has shown a tendency to be very undisciplined as recently evidenced by the flap on Ophiuchus).

Ed F wrote:Likewise, if "converse" is taken in the modern meaning of going against the direction of diurnal motion. I still don't understand Martin's historical definition of the word, though. Probably because I came up through modern primaries where significator is the point to which you direct, and promissor is the point that is moved in the directions of diurnal motion. The historical use that Martin describes appears to define those terms differently and independently of which end of the arc they occupy.

That's correct. Perhaps the traditional definition is too simple for a modern mind to accept. It is simply this: the planet or point which signifies any area you are investigating (such as the MC for actions, or the hyleg for life) is the significator. The planet or aspect which promises good or bad for the significator is the promissor. If the promissor is ahead of the significator in the zodiac (so that the diurnal motion of the direction belongs to the promissor), the direction is called direct. If it is the other way around, the direction is called converse.