Petr wrote:The calculation is correct. But there is a problem. The problem is the difference between the zodiacal direction width latitude and mundo direction. He is not in the settings shown.
Aspect is included the significator in mundo direction. This gives the required difference.

The other question I had is what passes for zodiacal latitude of aspects when Bianchini isn't used? Do I simply use the same latitude for aspects around the zodiac? This is why I have Bianchini or no latitude as options at the moment for zodiacal directions.

There is also another issue... At this point I got mundane aspects by adding the aspect amount (for instance, 90 degrees for a square) to the ecliptic longitude of the planet. I'm certain that there are other mundane options here for what constitutes an aspect and I hope this is one option. I'll have to get back to reading...

... for instance I was thinking that one could add 60, 90, 120, 180 etc degrees not to the ecliptic longitude, but to the right ascension for mundane aspects.

zoidsoft wrote:... for instance I was thinking that one could add 60, 90, 120, 180 etc degrees not to the ecliptic longitude, but to the right ascension for mundane aspects.

Well, that's an option I sometimes consider, aspects along the equator. Akin to the meridian house system. Have a look below. On the right the positions are in RA. to convert to degrees 1h=15? 4min=1?

Very simple to use, for primaries just turn one degree (or one RA minute) for a year.
I consider it somewhat the mother of all mundane quadrant systems.

http://www.ephemeris.com/ephemeris.php

Date/Time: 2011.02.03 20:32:21 UTC (GMT - Delta T), JD = 2455596.355810
Sidereal Time: 05:27:03, Delta T = 70.1 seconds
Geocentric positions

Phase of Moon: 0.024 (0.000=New; 0.250=First 1/4; 0.500=Full; 0.750=Last 1/4)

Planet Longitude Latitude Right Asc. Declination
Sun 14 Aqr 39'41" 0?00'01" 21:08:30 -16?26'02"
Moon 23 Aqr 01'46" 3?59'41" 21:36:10 -10?03'43"
Moon's Node 02 Cap 04'31"R 0?00'00" 18:09:03 -23?25'18"
Apogee 26 Psc 31'48" 5?06'51" 23:39:08 3?18'50"
Mercury 29 Cap 53'07" - 1?30'57" 20:09:37 -21?39'17"
Venus 29 Sgr 33'17" 2?30'17" 17:58:06 -20?55'57"
Mars 14 Aqr 51'04" - 1?04'43" 21:10:35 -17?24'36"
Jupiter 02 Ari 19'16" - 1?09'38" 00:10:22 - 0?08'31"
Saturn 17 Lib 09'37"R 2?33'59" 13:07:13 - 4?22'03"

This would be my second option after the ecliptical system. In right ascensions the concept of a coordinate system with base plane and poles rectangular to the base is maintained. One minus is that the horizon isn't really represented in it. On the other side I'd say that planets on the horizon can be in any meridian house. Very easy system. Perhaps useable in natural astrology. Sorry if I'm drifting off the traditional subject. However, in China the equator has always been the main reference plane for lunar mansions.

By the way, I have restarted my calculations for the 'Kiev-case' (the calculations which I had lost tuesday). With it we could look at the terminology, which is which. it'll be tomorrow or saturday.

Up to the 17th century, only zodiacal aspects (with and without latitude) were used in primary directions. Then Placidus introduced his mundane aspects, which are not aspects along the equator but based on individual planetary semi-arcs (where 1/90 of a semi-arc equals one "degree"), and which gained increasing acceptance during the 19th century. No other system has been used in practice that I am aware of.

Martin Gansten wrote:Up to the 17th century, only zodiacal aspects (with and without latitude) were used in primary directions. Then Placidus introduced his mundane aspects, which are not aspects along the equator but based on individual planetary semi-arcs (where 1/90 of a semi-arc equals one "degree"), and which gained increasing acceptance during the 19th century. No other system has been used in practice that I am aware of.

Well that should simplify the program code significantly...

In the Kiev case of my 1 Feb post 6:02pm, I?ve calculated the eight possible methods of traditional directions for Moon to Venus.
Kiev, Ukraine, 21 August 2007, 3:00 am EET (=0h UT) ST 23h57m49s
The calculations of the eight situations can be seen in that post, where I just added them.
For a clear overview, I mention here the eight situations and the results in degrees and years/months (Ptolemy key, no secondary motion, geocentric Moon)
Situations:

In zodiaco
Situation A Mo to Ve+60 = 30?50?
A 30y10m
Situation B Mo-60 to Ve = 39?58?
B 40y 0m

In mundo (Bianchini)
Situation B Mo to Ve+60 = 30?48?
C 30y10m
Situation D Mo-60 to Ve = 34?18?
D 34y 4m

In zodiaco
Situation E Mo to Ve-60 = 191?49?
E 191y10m
Situation F Mo+60 to Ve = 175? 4?
F 175y 1m

In mundo (Bianchini)
Situation G Mo to Ve-60 = 193?53?
G 193y11m
Situation H Mo+60 to Ve = 181?26?
H 182y 5m


Perhaps someone could give the correct terminology direct/converse
I believe that A,C,E,G are direct and that B,D,F,H are converse directions. Is this correct?

Eddy wrote:Perhaps someone could give the correct terminology direct/converse
I believe that A,C,E,G are direct and that B,D,F,H are converse directions. Is this correct?

No, the other way around. When the aspect point is the one being moved with the diurnal motion, you have a direct direction. When the aspect point is regarded as fixed, you have a converse direction. In either case, an aspect point can never be a significator. Therefore, directions A and C concern areas signified by the Moon; directions B and D, areas signified by Venus. The remaining directions are hardly relevant even in Ukraine, as no amount of yoghurt is likely to prolong life beyond 175 years.

Thanks Martin, it's still quite complicated. Especially when I see that in general 'directing to' is referred to in another way than I would expect. I probably should have written the list differently. Here, http://altairastrology.wordpress.com/20 ... ns-direct/ , directing to MC means that MC is fixed, while I would say that from an ecliptical referential point of view, the MC moves along the fixed points of the radix chart.

I see just two ways of 'fixing, to the Ecliptic and to the Earth. When ecliptic is used, with the natal planets and cusps measured along the ecliptic, the only things that move in the say 6 hours after birth in which the directions are formed, are MC and Asc. In 6 hours, 90? for MC and more or less for Asc, depending on rising signs' speed. Not even the Moon moves more than 4? in this time-span. When Earth is used, the planets are fixed to Earth and during the next 6 hours all planets move some 90? passing the horizon and meridian and all fixed points of the natal planets. In this case, I feel the use of secondary motion has to be used for the moving planets. The former would be some ancestor prototype, the latter would then be the method of Placidus.

I find the classical method quite complicated. Not that I argue it's use but I wonder whether the very first astrologers who thought about primary directions wouldn't have confined themselves just to the angles, or only the Ascendant (since MC was discovered/used only later). This is the easiest method, so perhaps it could be the first in evolution process of the primaries. I'd say short after the first mention of the Ascendant as a mathematical point in 4 BC (according to Michael Baigent's 'From the omens of Babylon').

I had a look whether something happened in Kiev that date 21 August 2007. It's quite an interesting date. That day the 1000th kilometer of a railwaymodernization was done http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-4637875 ... ilway.html
and the Saint Sophia Cathedral was listed under the 'seven wonders of Ukraine' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Soph ... al_in_Kiev
No need of yoghurt for these .

Martin Gansten wrote:

Eddy wrote:Perhaps someone could give the correct terminology direct/converse
I believe that A,C,E,G are direct and that B,D,F,H are converse directions. Is this correct?

No, the other way around. When the aspect point is the one being moved with the diurnal motion, you have a direct direction. When the aspect point is regarded as fixed, you have a converse direction. In either case, an aspect point can never be a significator. Therefore, directions A and C concern areas signified by the Moon; directions B and D, areas signified by Venus. The remaining directions are hardly relevant even in Ukraine, as no amount of yoghurt is likely to prolong life beyond 175 years.

Should I take out the check box allowing promissors to be directed to aspects of significators?

This too seems strange to me... sort of like dealing with a subject matter not directly on its own (conjunction) by (as Schmidt might say) using secondary intentionality (some aspect of the significator rather than the significator itself). Such a process would be similar to the situation in mathematics where we let "X" stand for something. We deal with X mathematically using rules we believe to be universally true, but are divorced from the direct experience of "X" and therefore potentially are divorced from the reality of "X", getting only some "aspect" of "X".

However, if we inquire about some subject matter such as praxis, Valens says we can look to the MC, but also the trigons of the MC as well the 2nd and 6th. Is this not like an aspect of a significator?

There's something else that's been bugging me... it doesn't quite make sense to me to have a mundane direction with aspects that use the zodiac. This seems to me like mixing reference frames. If one uses the zodiac, then it makes sense, but it is a direction in zodiaco. I don't see how one can have aspects in mundo when the aspect points are reduced to some place on the ecliptic.

zoidsoft wrote:There's something else that's been bugging me... it doesn't quite make sense to me to have a mundane direction with aspects that use the zodiac. This seems to me like mixing reference frames. If one uses the zodiac, then it makes sense, but it is a direction in zodiaco. I don't see how one can have aspects in mundo when the aspect points are reduced to some place on the ecliptic.

Likewise.