zoidsoft wrote: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,...
I've looked at and also tried to
develop myself several different methods which might appeal more to a philosophical comparison with the 365,25 years cycle. This indeed can drive you insane. Furthermore every method will lead to results. Possibly the users of several systems adapt the results of their experiences to a certain philosophy of first principles of their own preference. This need not to be a problem. It still might be possible that different methods lead to an understanding of patterns which makes it possible to foresee an upcoming pattern of similar character. As long as one doesn't hop from one system to the other to forcedly fit the results.
For the sake of my mind I therefore don't look too much at different systems and don't look too often at them. But when I look at them I simply use Ptolemy's key and only use the directed Ascendant and MC, looking for periods rather than exact hits. And sometimes in the meridian/equatorial frame instead of the traditional ecliptic, thus a kind of 'in mundo' for the equator. However, the different methods easily can differ several years and therefore go beyond the period covered by the solar return. So there can be a huge difference between the methods.
A problem which rises with a less required exactitude is that directions will overlap, especially when planet to planet directions are inserted. You will find more but it also will get more blurred.
Where I really balk is when finding the PD of Apollon conjunct the biquintile of Transpluto which is probably possible with Janus. I think that this is just going too far because this will multiply the number of directions to such an extent that it will be impossible to miss. Everything will be forcast, everything will happen to the native and nothing is ever falsified. To do this is to force the signal to fall back into the background noise making the method useless.
However this is not only the case when you use all these asteroids and new planets. If you use the seven classical planets and direct them to the 'pinned' seven planets and MC and Ascendant then you get 7*9=63 hits. Multiply this by the 8 aspects and you get 504 hits in the cycle of 360/365.25 years. This means an average of one direction every nine months. With a dispersal of the effectiviy of one year or a bit more there always will be a hit.
Of course in a real chart situation there are accumulations and the applied astrological method will render the planets more or less effective, but to my taste I still find it too much. With MC and Asc directed to the seven planets with the eight aspects you get 2*7*8=112, and therefore an average of one in every three years. This allows to think in periods rather than hits and you see the accumulations more clearly. Finally combining them with transits and perhaps the progressed Sun (not including the other planets, because of the same reason). (I think this 'three stages' method is modern, but I find it attractive).
Is this Makransky's work you referred to Curtis?
www.dearbrutus.com/primarydirections_1.pdfIt 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.