The thing is, I am not talking about AS, MC, etc., anymore, I am talking about a person being born in a day that the Rise, Culm, Set or Anti-Culm of one of the planets could have a signification not only among other planets (if it is aspecting the Rise, Culm, Set or Anti-Culm of another planet), but also on their own (if a person is born at the exact time of the Rise, Culm, Set or Anti-Culm of one planet).

However, I am pretty sure that I am not building on top of a system, but mixing two systems.

Now I am talking about the specificities of the day a person is born, and not about the specificities of the minute and hour that a person is born.

Yet, I don't know how am I mixing everything. It still seems that I am talking about a "planet AS" or "planet MC" (etc.) in a way, but not an AS or MC that varies from moment to moment*, only one that varies from day to day.

* Even if we consider that, in the Northern Hemisphere, the MC is in the south direction, and it is actually only the AS-DE that varies, I am not sure how this concept of any "planet AS" (or "MC", etc.) applies here.

I do think that one reason for the confusion is a certain limitation in your understanding of the celestial mechanics involved (and I am not sure why you think the rising, etc., times of the Sun are always important in relation to the other planets). In a place as close to the equator as Rio de Janeiro, the length of day or night (the Sun's diurnal and nocturnal arcs) will never be far off 12 hours/180 ascensional degrees; and Venus and Mercury, which are typically quite close to the Sun, will have similar values. Which means that the distances between the four angular positions of these three bodies will often approximate 6 hours/90 degrees, roughly speaking.

But overall, what you are getting at seems to have some affinity with the modern concept of 'parans' (building on the traditional paranatellonta), where one point rising as another culminates, etc., is considered significant. You may want to explore that area.

durahan

aside from martins suggestions to look into the idea of parans, i also suggest you watch the video from ken bowser on mundane aspects, as what you are saying reminds me of that - two different systems - ecliptical and equatorial.. hopefully you figure it out.. let us know what you find! - obrigado!

Hi there - I tend to agree that this sounds like the concept of parans. If you have Rob Hand's Essays on Astrology, ch. 7 - A New Approach to Transits. Ed

I must warn the reader that this post is written in a free-style format. I thought that I was making sense, but I don't know.

Martin Gansten wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2024 2:55 pm I do think that one reason for the confusion is a certain limitation in your understanding of the celestial mechanics involved (and I am not sure why you think the rising, etc., times of the Sun are always important in relation to the other planets). In a place as close to the equator as Rio de Janeiro, the length of day or night (the Sun's diurnal and nocturnal arcs) will never be far off 12 hours/180 ascensional degrees; and Venus and Mercury, which are typically quite close to the Sun, will have similar values. Which means that the distances between the four angular positions of these three bodies will often approximate 6 hours/90 degrees, roughly speaking.

But overall, what you are getting at seems to have some affinity with the modern concept of 'parans' (building on the traditional paranatellonta), where one point rising as another culminates, etc., is considered significant. You may want to explore that area.

It is good that you confirm it because that is what I was getting from you, as I've pointed out in the lasts posts.

I am not sure if this was clear from the beginning for me, but I've been understanding what you're saying: in a given latitude, the pattern that will emerge (the "aspects") will always be kinda the same.

For instance, I had shown that Venus Set squared Mercury Culmination in that day and location, but Venus Set will always kinda square Mercury Culmination in that location, it will happen every day (sometimes a little less, sometimes a little more).

I guess that I thought that it would be true only if we compared a planet rise with another planet rise (etc.), but not if we compared different main positions (a planet rise with another planet anti-culminating, etc.). The different main positions will extend the range of my "aspects", but I guess it would still always be the same "aspects" anyway. In other words, there will be the differentiations that I was expecting/seeking, but it won't mean anything.


Anyway, I could still hang on to that idea and say that, when it is in an exact "aspect" (in this context) -- whatever that "aspect" may be, the information still holds water, but with that I understand my supposition loses strength overall. And then, it might lose even more, because I will have to ask: different latitudes will provide me significations that could be different or that will be different? In other words: will I be able to compare different charts or only different charts within the same latitude (in this context, the position of the planets of the people way north will have the same "aspect" with the position of the planets with the people near the equator?... I know the time of the planets will be different, but the same proportions will remain?)?

However, it would be easier to just throw that away and only consider if a person is born under a planet at the exact time of Rise, Culm, Set or IC (like you did with a client) (I didn't know people did that!). My feeling was right in this regard, just not in the extent that I wish it was. But I don't have to end it here.

It is funny because I still think this idea has more room to develop, but I don't know in which direction to take it at the moment. And I like the design of relating everything to the Sun rising of one day (0º) and the Sun rising of the next day (360º) (even though I've started by saying that we shouldn't relate everything to the Sun haha).

For instance, one thing that crosses my mind is that a person can be born at ~90º, ~180º, ~270º, ~360º (45º, 120º, or what have you), and the signification that can emerge from that is obvious. However, I was only talking about the Sun rise of the next day (=360º) and the Sun rising of the day (=0º), yet, I don't have to limit at it (contradicting myself earlier), I can do that to all the planets: one person that is born 130º from the Sun rising time, can be born at 120º from Mercury rising time, and now we know that the significations of that angle/time will be coming from/for Mercury, and not from/for the Sun.

By the way, maybe that was what I was trying to do all along: to (try to) "aspect" the Rise, Culm, Set or Anti-Culm of each of the planets to the time a person is born!


I will take more of a look at parans, thanks!

james_m wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2024 4:49 pm durahan

aside from martins suggestions to look into the idea of parans, i also suggest you watch the video from ken bowser on mundane aspects, as what you are saying reminds me of that - two different systems - ecliptical and equatorial.. hopefully you figure it out.. let us know what you find! - obrigado!

In a sense, I really think that what I am getting at is similar to the concept of parans and of mundane aspects (although, in the case of parans, I would never have thought in considering the fixed starts in my equations, and it will probably work easily).

We are all starting from the same point: how/when the time of the Rise, Culm, Set and IC of each of the planets can make sense (in a Natal chart)? How/When can I make sense of the time of the Rise, Culm, Set and IC of each of the planets in a way that goes beyond the consideration of a person being born at the exact time of one of those planets' positions?

I am only expressing it as "aspects" because it is the only "language" that I know of, even though I am trying to explore all my possibilities. For instance, I've mentioned it before: what if a person is born at the exact time between (midpoint) Sun Rise and Mercury Rise, does it mean something? I don't think it does, but maybe it is worth mentioning. It is not just about "aspects", but about the significations that can emerge from the time of the main positions of each of the planets.

In the paragraph above I was just wondering and wandering about my topic in general; not rambling about your quote specifically haha.


Haha I wasn't expecting the "obrigado"... Obrigado você, meu amigo ("Thank you, my friend"). I will look deeper into mundane aspects as well.

astralwanderer wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2024 9:16 pm Hi there - I tend to agree that this sounds like the concept of parans. If you have Rob Hand's Essays on Astrology, ch. 7 - A New Approach to Transits. Ed

I will go straight into that, thanks.


Thanks all for the suggestions.

Hi there - if you are interested in exploring parans as described in Rob Hand's article, there is a module within Jean Cremer's freeware Planetdance that I have coded.

You can find out more here, including download link:

www.jcremers.com

https://forum.jcremers.com/index.php/to ... tml#msg755

Thanks. Ed

here is a question for the astro pundits...

what is the difference between parans and mundane ( in mundo) aspects??

it seems to me one is focused on star data and the other on planetary data, but the terms seem to be a blur the way they are used generally..

thanks!

If one planet (or star) is on the horizon while another is on the meridian, Placidus would call that a mundane square, and as far as I understand the modern concept of parans, it would also qualify as a paran. But planets can be in mundane square without actually being on the angles, and then there are all the other possible mundane aspect angles, both major and minor. Basically you consider the semi-arc of a planet to correspond to 90 degrees and calculate aspects proportionally. If one planet has 2/3 left to go of its semi-arc from rising to culminating, and another planet has completed 2/3 of its semi-arc from culminating to setting, then they form a mundane trine (each 1/3 is 30 degrees, and 4 x 30 = 120).

Another way of putting this is that mundane aspects are aspectual relationships based on Placidus houses rather than on zodiacal degrees. But you need to remember that these are house positions built into the individual arcs of the planets, not the approximations seen in a two-dimensional chart.

thanks martin

i am mostly interested in the planet connections, as opposed to the star connections, but appreciate the overlap..

how often did astrologers of the past consider these parans, or mundane aspects relevant? of course planets on angles are considered more relevant then planets away from the angles.. based on kenneth bowswers video where he discusses them - i find the whole topic quite interesting.. he gives a mundane square between saturn and neptune in trumps chart as an example.. when you look at the standard astro chart - this isn't obvious and it is ''away'' from the angles.. not sure what it looks like in different house systems, as i am not working with placidus house system..

btw - i think you explained this very well.. thanks..

okay - here is another question...

it seems to me placidus house system is an attempt at embedding this into a house system for use, based off the importance of this 'semi arc' method, which in a round about way highlighted mundane aspects based off the rise/culminate/set/opp culminate cycle of the planets... my problem with placidus house system is it skews the way to read a chart in a severe way... that is how i see it, so i am curious if capturing mundane aspects is part of the rationale behind this house system? thanks..

In historical order, the uses of the semi-arc method go:

• Directions: from Ptolemy in the 2nd century CE (if not earlier) throughout the medieval period
• House division: known to ibn Ezra in the 12th century but revived by Placidus in the 17th and popularized in the 19th
• Mundane aspects and related concepts: invented by Placidus and popularized in the 19th century

So mundane aspects were not widely used until 200 years or so ago. Paranatellonta or co-risings in the classical sense were used in ancient astrology, but the modern concept of parans is somewhat different.

The Placidus house system has certain inherent limitations, but if by 'skew' you mean that the houses as projected onto the ecliptic will be of very different sizes, then that will be even more true of Campanus, and perhaps some other systems as well. What is really skewed with reference to the daily rotation of the earth around its axis is of course the ecliptic, which wobbles back and forth across the east/west points as it turns during a day and night. This obliquity of the ecliptic is what creates differently-sized houses (as measured on the ecliptic) in any system that takes the fixed and unchanging meridian into consideration.