These are the kind of complications I'm leaving to the scholars!

- Ed

zoidsoft wrote:I was wondering if in the pyMorinus software, with 3 options for aspects (aspects of promissor to significator, aspects of significator to promissor, or both), does both mean both of the former or does it mean that an aspect of a significator can also be directed to an aspect of a promissor? Or is it the case that one of the 2 (sig or pro) has to be a bodily conjunction?

This is where we run into the problem of terminology. Rob's software uses the same modern conventions as Rumen Kolev's, where 'significator' is used for the fixed point and 'promissor' for the moving point. In other words, the three options are:
1. To move the aspect point with the diurnal motion towards a fixed planet, angle, or similar point. (This fixed point would be the significator in the traditional sense: the Asc for the body, the Sun for honours, and so forth. This is a direct direction.)
2. To move the planet or point in question with the diurnal motion towards a fixed aspect point. (Traditionally speaking, the aspect point would still be the promissor, and the planet or what have you would be the significator. This is a converse direction in the traditional sense.)
3. Both of the above.

So for example, Jupiter is promissor and Sun is significator. If I want to find the traditional way of finding the opposition ray of Jupiter conjunct the Sun, I'm supposed to find the opposition to the Sun and direct Jupiter (bodily) to it?

The opposition may not be the best example, as the two directions will coincide, so let's make it a trine.

If you are looking at the native's honours and glory, using the Sun as significator for these, and you want to find out when the trine of Jupiter would increase honours, then there are two traditional options:
1. Find the point of Jupiter's trine aspect (with or without latitude as you prefer) and move it with the diurnal motion until it reaches the Sun. This would be called 'Sun to the trine of Jupiter by direct motion'.
2. Find the point of Jupiter's trine aspect and move the Sun with the diurnal motion until it reaches that aspect point. This would be called 'Sun to the trine of Jupiter by converse motion'.

In both cases you use the trine of Jupiter, not the trine of the Sun. Using the trine of the Sun would mean that Jupiter was your significator (for religious matters, perhaps).

Incidentally, Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope on the direction of the Sun to the trine of Jupiter by direct motion as described above (the more fitting as his Sun is exalted and trine theMC).

Thanks Martin. Now mulling over next move programmatically...

Ed F wrote:But you have to give up the assumption of right projection being a requirement of a coordinate system. Once you accept Mike Wackford's "It's the oblique sphere, stupid" comment, it falls into place nicely.

- Ed

Probably easier said than done . I feel very attached to the aesthetic beauty of the right projection and this still comes first in my personal hierarchy of reference frame methods. Difficult to overthrow this at once. Ed, if I remember well, before you heard about Svarogich, you used Campanus mundane didn't you? Changing systems requires an 'adjustment' of previous experiences (related to direction hits) with the new reference system. Rather than arguing this, I can see this as acceptable as different means to find patterns in life, each method perhaps focussing on different experience levels in life. Was the change troublesome, and did you reject Campanus or did you continue using it rather as a co-existing frame probably somewhat lower on the list of preferences? I remember a last year philosoph in law course, in which the juridical variant of the 'leap of faith' was discussed, the process of sudden intuitional insight in jurisdiction from which we never completely can escape. Maybe a similar thing takes place in the change of use of systems.

Curtis/Martin,
Yesterday I made some hand calculations of traditional methods for a specific date. Probably we might discuss the it to have a more concrete case to study the subject. Now I see Martin's two options I'm confused. Yesterday I ended up with four options (2 in zodiaco, 2 in mundo, when the one is significator and promissor the other time) but with Martin's second option I'll have to multiply this by two giving eight options. My first impression is that option 1 and 2, either are the same or option 2 is a time previous to birth. Very confusing. While the method Ed uses simply gives only one (for after birth directions and apart from secondary motion and different keys). Sorry for my modern views, no my-system-is-better-view intended. However when exposing these thoughts I hope to see clarified what actually is done with the different methods which result into a more insight and facilitates the personal choice of a certain method. After my calculations yesterday, I felt that either the modern planet to planet in their proportionate arcs or the in zodiaco would be the most logic cq. attractive options.

As I'm occupied with some other things the next few days, it won't be before tuesday or wednesday I can post the calculations.

Eddy wrote:Yesterday I made some hand calculations of traditional methods for a specific date. Probably we might discuss the it to have a more concrete case to study the subject.

Certainly.

Now I see Martin's two options I'm confused. Yesterday I ended up with four options (2 in zodiaco, 2 in mundo, when the one is significator and promissor the other time) but with Martin's second option I'll have to multiply this by two giving eight options.

My first response would have to be that these are not really my options, but the traditional options used by everyone from Ptolemy to Placidus, and well into the 19th century, before the term 'converse' was misunderstood and reinterpreted...

My first impression is that option 1 and 2, either are the same or option 2 is a time previous to birth. Very confusing.

They are not the same, and neither takes place before birth. To continue using Ratzinger's chart as an illustration, Jupiter is on the ascendant, with the Sun in the 2nd house (Alcabitius). Now, Jupiter has two trines, one falling below the horizon near the 5th cusp, and the other above the horizon near the 9th cusp. Using only the natural diurnal motion, we can either:
(1) bring the aspect point below the horizon up to the natal position of the Sun (a traditional direct direction); or
(2) bring the Sun to the natal position of the aspect point above the horizon (a traditional converse direction).
Option (2), however, would not be possible within the confines of a normal span of life.

Thanks for the clarification Martin. Concerning your previous post I hadn't taken into account the possibility of Jupiter's trines on either side.

Hi Eddy,

Yes, before Svarogich, I used mainly mundane Campanus, but also mundane Topocentric/Placidus. I've been all over the place through the years. And for a while I used both Svarogich and Campanus. Now it's mainly Svarogich and Placidus, which have little to differentiate them in actual positions, though the latter has opened up a lot of practical methods for me.

- Ed

Thanks Ed,
Svarogich is a bit complicated for me. It's either the maths, or my English or his terminology, or my formerly lesser motivation to understand this variant of Placidus that made me not understand it. Maybe a mixture of several of those. About topocentric, I believe there was an article that explained that the cusp lines of this system cross eachother in some cases. Quite odd. Campanus also has the feature of the traditional coordinate system with perpendicular cusp lines. His 'brother' the horizon system is a system which I find interesting for imagining 'static' positioning of the observer in relation to his surroundings on Earth. I guess all reference systems have their strong and their weak points.

edit: later I realised that Ed referred to local positions vs. geocentric positions. Polich and Page didn't do a good job by using a term for their house-system which already meant something else .

Eddy wrote:Thanks Ed,
Svarogich is a bit complicated for me. It's either the maths, or my English or his terminology, or my formerly lesser motivation to understand this variant of Placidus that made me not understand it. Maybe a mixture of several of those. About topocentric, I believe there was an article that explained that the cusp lines of this system cross eachother in some cases. Quite odd. Campanus also has the feature of the traditional coordinate system with perpendicular cusp lines. His 'brother' the horizon system is a system which I find interesting for imagining 'static' positioning of the observer in relation to his surroundings on Earth. I guess all reference systems have their strong and their weak points.

I think his English and my attempt to clean it up may have something to do with the difficulty as well. My first edit was much clearer, but he wanted to have the translation close to those given in other languages. Too bad I didn't manage to save it somewhere.

Topocentric does have cusp borders crossing at certain times and latitudes. Polich and Page dealt with it by introducing a clever, but weakly justified, alternate method for calculating house positions and cusps starting at +/- 60 degrees.

Svarogich deals with the same problem (overlapping possible mundane positions) by rationalizing that this is an outcome of the fomulae used, and that a specific position can be determined by looking at where the point lies in its rotation around the earth's axis relative to the horizon.

Mike Wackford addresses the underlying issue, which is due to points on the celestial sphere either not setting or not rising by redefining how a mundane position should be defined when a point is circumpolar. Except he does a much, much better job than Polich and Page of justifying his choice of mechanism.

Axel Harvey was also a big fan of what you call the horizontal (or azimuthal) system.

As far as different frames of reference for different purpose, I don't know. I think it depends on what you're trying to do with them. For instance if the important point is having an accurate model of ascensional characteristics, and you consider that accuracy to be the basis of accurate primary directions (and perhaps of house division), then you can't beat the Placidus/semiarc method because any other geometrical approach to modeling ascension is more or less inaccurate compared to it. But if ascesional characteristic aren't central your method, then you can use other methods with some justification because they are trying to do something else. But to take a bunch of quadrant systems and say "this for this", "that for that", _if_ they're intended to model ascension, is just plain wrong.

But we stray from the thread and the purpose of the forum here.

- Ed

Well that explains the matter about my struggle in understanding Svarogich's work.

Ok, let's leave this subject for another time and return to the topic of the thread.

Was it common practice to direct a promissor to a significator as an aspect of itself?

For example the sinister square of the Sun (promissor) to the Sun (bodily) as significator.

How often is it the case that aspects of promissors are directed to aspects of significators? Was this common historical practice?

Also is there anything that should be excluded as being directed to itself? The conjunction to itself at birth is pointless, but 1 diurnal rotation 360 degrees later?