Skyscript Astrology Forum

Good afternoon,

To me it is a mystery how we can hope to, as Mr Tom said:

a) learn what he is doing, and b) apply that to other charts for the purposes of prediction. We know his calculations are not going to perfectly match a computer's. It doesn't matter if he does or not, as long as they are close. There is no astrological prediction method that produces hits on the day of an event each and every time.

if we don't know what 'close' means. The various data from different computer programmes seem also to differ by perhaps more than 'close' from Mr John Worsdale's. Primary directions are extremely time sensitive. Small changes in ephemerides, algorithms, data of place and time, can easily reflect in differences of event times of months.

My approach to the problem has hitherto been somewhat different and perhaps suboptimal. Expecting data differences from the outset, i restricted the primary directions considered to those Mr Worsdale found effective and that he analysed in the text, eliminating the others from the list. Using as much original data (place, time) from our author as possible, i then rectified the birth time (using Janus but some other programme might also do) to obtain primary directions data most closely resembling Mr Worsdale's.

Concerning the primary directions data differences amongst various software programmes, it seems to me far too much expected from mere students like yours truly to develop much confidence in the astrological tool of primary directions if experts and software engineers obviously significantly diverge on their implementations. This perhaps potentially inharmonious topic should therefore be directly addressed rather than deliberately ignored and / or avoided. What might be gained by sticking our heads into the sand?

Best regards,

lihin

PS In my limited knowledge, conversion of equatorial positions into ecliptical ones is not only possible but frequent. Even the Sun occasionally has ex. gr. 1 second of ecliptical latitude as He orbits round a barycentre.

lihin wrote: if we don't know what 'close' means. The various data from different computer programmes seem also to differ by perhaps more than 'close' from Mr John Worsdale's.

The problem is: different software are really traditional? I only checked Morinus by redoing by hand calculation , and it is traditional.

Morinus fits with Placidus and Phasis- so at the moment they are the only ones I trust (they all give the same results), about others I don't know

margherita

Despite the fact that this is the sort of discussion I want to avoid I'm going to reply and then the subject will be dropped.

if we don't know what 'close' means.

"Close" is a common English word it means "near" or "approximately." Once we define it to the nth degree it is no longer close, but precise. Far too many astrologers expect astrological methods to be more precise than any astrologer has ever been able to accomplish. We're not engineers. We're astrologers.

Primary directions are time sensitive, but our purpose is to see how they are used, not to overstate the obvious. In the example above several directions involving the hyleg occurred within several months of each other and then shortly after the last one, the native died. Hyleg is the giver of life. Nasty directions took it away.

Furthermore he didn't stop with the directions but looked to progressions and (we didn't get there yet) a solar return in order to pin point the event in question. That's the method. The method does not stand or fall based on a single technique's ability or failure to pinpoint the date (why not the hour?). Several months is close enough to give a warning that something is going to happen. That's what Worsdale did.

Tom wrote:

also known as parallels of declination

I thought parallels of declination were measured in degrees above and below the equator, and therefore would not have a zodiacal longitude. But antiscia is measured on the ecliptic. I know there is a connection between them, but I've never been strong in this area. I probably should dig into it.

As parallels in mundo are identical with parallels of declinations, each parallel will hit the ecliptic in two points (one to the right and one to the left) and indeed in two different signs and in two different terms.

This is the same principle we see the equator cuttting the ecliptic in two points: So also the parallels of the equator cut the ecliptic in two points.

This only would be to proved by computing these points in Kent's chart.

Tom wrote:@Martin

also known as parallels of declination

I thought parallels of declination were measured in degrees above and below the equator, and therefore would not have a zodiacal longitude. But antiscia is measured on the ecliptic. I know there is a connection between them, but I've never been strong in this area. I probably should dig into it.

This is the kind of thing that is more easily explained with the aid of a celstial globe (as recommended by Worsdale himself). Properly speaking, a parallel of declination is not a point but a small circle parallel to the equator, just as you say. But such a circle will intersect the ecliptic in two places (just like the equator itself intersects the ecliptic at 0? tropical Aries and 0? tropical Libra), and those are the two points used by Placidus for primary directions. Incidentally, I recall that Morin, too, writes that antiscia ought to be taken with latitude, that is, from the actual declination of the planet rather than that of its ecliptical projection.

johannes susato wrote:Parallels in mundo are identical with parallels of declinations.

No, parallels in mundo (as defined by Placidus) are entirely different. They are based on equidistance from the horizon or meridian.

Martin Gansten wrote:

johannes susato wrote:Parallels in mundo are identical with parallels of declinations.

No, parallels in mundo (as defined by Placidus) are entirely different. They are based on equidistance from the horizon or meridian.

Thank you, Martin!

Is my understanding now right that there are three kinds of parallels?
1. to the equator (parallels of declination)
2. to the ecliptic
3. to the horizon (called parallels in mundo by Placidus)

. . . and what sort of parallel is meant by this sentence of Worsdale, please:

"Venus is also retrograde, near the Pleiades, and in exact parallel with Mercury in mundo where she becomes posited in the terms of both the enemies.?

This is the kind of thing that is more easily explained with the aid of a celstial globe

And he probably said that somewhere near one of his rants against the planesphere. Thanks for your answer.

Good evening,

Everyone is entitled to their opinions including, of course, Mr Tom. Several authors of thick, erudite books on astrology, however, have applied primary directions concurrently with other tools to rectify event times to seconds of time and arcs. Even if months are close enough for us in primary directions, methinks a careful tradesman, astrologer and / or engineer, will diligently attempt to calibrate his tools (ex. gr. software) before applying them.

Having worked much with data consistency matters, alas i cannot concur with Ms Margherita, although i should like to, in trusting any software packages because their results agree. Perhaps they all took their formulae and algorithms from the same (eventually erroneous - 'errare humanum est') source. Although 'traditional' sounds nice and comforting, some experts opine that Renaissance techniques of primary directions were breaches of tradition, innovations. (Not necessarily my opinion.)

Even using Morinus i have, sadly, not yet been able to obtain the same results as Ms Margherita. Here is a chart from Morinus:
And here is the data entered, of course with LAT and Mr John Worsdale's coordinates for Liverpool, England! The Lot of Fortune is in zodiaco. Apparently Morinus cannot - yet - show the ecliptical value of its mundo position.
My question is, if this chart agrees to Ms Margherita's and other participants' in this thread in Morinus:

How, please, must the Morinus Primary Directions Options be configured to obtain results closest to Mr Worsdale's who lists, on page 85, 6 degrees, 59 minutes of arc for the direction "Moon to the Parallel of Mars in the Zodiac"? The value stated above, 5.398, is 1.6 degrees less, a temporal difference of about 1 1/2 years. This is, according to Mr Worsdale (see page 88 ), one of the key 'killing directions' of the nativity.

Perhaps, however, i have overlooked something important.

Best regards,

lihin

johannes susato wrote:Is my understanding now right that there are three kinds of parallels?
1. to the equator (parallels of declination)
2. to the ecliptic
3. to the horizon (called parallels in mundo by Placidus)

I can't recall seeing parallels of latitude (your #2) used in older astrological literature, but yes, they're possible. Parallels in mundo (#3) can be formed either around the horizon or around the meridian.

. . . and what sort of parallel is meant by this sentence of Worsdale, please:

"Venus is also retrograde, near the Pleiades, and in exact parallel with Mercury in mundo where she becomes posited in the terms of both the enemies.?

He means that Venus and Mercury are equidistant from the meridian -- in this case, the lower meridian or IC.