25 by Mark Mundane 'aspects' aren't really aspects in the usual sense, but rather proportions in the respective semi-arcs of two planets. There is no mundane 'aspect point' which can be directed, the way a zodiacal aspect point (i.e., a certain degree on the ecliptic) can. Rather, as the promissor reaches a point in its semi-arc (which is divided into three Placidean houses) corresponding to the position of the significator in its own semi-arc, they are considered to be in aspect. A distance of two houses is a sextile; of three houses, a square; etc. This takes us away from primary directions specifically but I thought this old thread might be of interest in regards explaining mundane aspects. Deb's reply is especially interesting. http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... ght=#11782 Also an article by Kenneth Bowser on the subject http://www.westernsiderealastrology.com ... _mundo.pdf Note Bowser operates from the Fagan-Bradley school of western sidereal astrology but the in mundo aspects he discusses are not zodiacal anyway. I have always thought it strange that more astrologers do not work with mundane aspects. I am not aware of any software that does this yet, but Anton Grigoryev mentioned some time ago that a new and rather comprehensive program for primary directions is under development in Russia. Fingers crossed! Its good Grigoryev is behind this as he seems to have an excellent appreciation of the importance of fixed stars in the traditional use of primary directions. I suppose it is a big ask. The technical sophistication of Kolev's 'Placidus' for primaries combined with Brady's Starlight software for fixed stars. Last edited by Mark on Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:06 pm, edited 1 time in total. Quote Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:24 pm
26 by Martin Gansten Thanks for the links, Mark. I really need to see that Antiochus quotation... Note Bowser operates from the Fagan-Bradley school of western sidereal astrology but the in mundo aspects he discusses are not zodiacal anyway. True. And I never had a problem with the sidereal zodiac anyway. I have always thought it strange that more astrologers do not work with mundane aspects. Perhaps its because there is no straigtforward software to calculate them? Even if there was a developed system of mundane aspects in the time of Antiochus, they seem to have been disregarded through most of astrology's history -- long before astrologers became slaves to software. Quote Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:05 pm
27 by Mark Even if there was a developed system of mundane aspects in the time of Antiochus, they seem to have been disregarded through most of astrology's history -- long before astrologers became slaves to software. I suppose its a reflection of the supremacy of the symbolic (ie zodiacal) over the visual (in mundo) approach to astrology. There is clear evidence that the origins of astrology in Mesopotania had a strong component of visual astrology. There does seem to have been some survival of these ideas into the hellenistic era. For example, Anonymous of 379 discusses planets and stars in paran. This is a more visual approach to astrology which excludes the zodiac. I suspect the change came with a less observational astrology more reliant on planetary tables which could be done in-doors. The increasing popularity of Ptolemy's calculated tables and later updates was probably an important factor in this process. Bernadette Brady has done a lot to popularise the visual approach again regarding fixed stars. I think its only a matter of time until the same logic is applied to the planets in aspect. Last edited by Mark on Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:44 pm, edited 4 times in total. Quote Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:12 pm
28 by Mark I really need to see that Antiochus quotation... Sorry I do not have my copy in front of me. Its probably worth buying the whole publication from Project Hindsight anyway as they are republishing their old hellenistric track publications quite cheaply. It only costs $12.50 before postage. http://www.projecthindsight.com/archive ... istic.html Quote Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:18 pm
29 by Deb Hi Martin I just saw your reply. The reference is Antiochus Thesaurus, translated by Robert Schmidt, edited by Robert Hand (Project Hindsight, Greek Track, vol II-B, 1993, Berkeley Springs); Part 1, 15, pp.17-19. I offered the gist of the text which is quite reliable, but since it will take me longer than I have today to re-type those pages, I'll contact you privately about offering you my copy. Deb Quote Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:46 am
30 by rob MarkC wrote:I have just received Kolev's three booklets and have been avidly skimming through them. Hi Mark, I also orderd Rumen's three books yesterday from Los Angeles (halloran). I am looking forward to receiving them. How many days did it take to get them in Scotland? rob Quote Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:55 am
31 by Mark Hi Rob, I received my copies in less than a week. I ordered them from Dave Roell at Astrology Center of America. Bear in mind they are just booklets but wow does Rumen Kolev pack some material into them! Quote Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:05 am
32 by rob MarkC wrote:Hi Rob, I received my copies in less than a week. I ordered them from Dave Roell at Astrology Center of America. Sounds good! I hope that halloran will be as fast as astroamerica. By the way (if somebody is interested), I am developing a free astrology program only the primary directions are missing: http://pymorinus.extra.hu/ Quote Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:27 am
Re: Aspects are promissors only 33 by Ed F Martin Gansten wrote:rob wrote:... Mundane 'aspects' aren't really aspects in the usual sense, but rather proportions in the respective semi-arcs of two planets. There is no mundane 'aspect point' which can be directed, the way a zodiacal aspect point (i.e., a certain degree on the ecliptic) can. Rather, as the promissor reaches a point in its semi-arc (which is divided into three Placidean houses) corresponding to the position of the significator in its own semi-arc, they are considered to be in aspect. A distance of two houses is a sextile; of three houses, a square; etc. Exactly right. The idea of directing the aspect point of the promissor is muddling zodiacal and mundane aspects. Quote Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:01 pm
34 by Ed F rob wrote:MarkC wrote:... By the way (if somebody is interested), I am developing a free astrology program only the primary directions are missing: http://pymorinus.extra.hu/ Not to go too far off-topic, but your program looks good. I wouldn't bother with Placidus under-the-pole primaries - they're only an approximation to the semiarc version. When I wrote AstroFrames, I decided not to bother with inputting fixed star info from Sweph. But once the files can be read, and one has a way to select which stars to use, it should work simply with the various calculation routines. Quote Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:08 pm
35 by Martin Gansten rob wrote:By the way (if somebody is interested), I am developing a free astrology program only the primary directions are missing: http://pymorinus.extra.hu/ Best of luck with it (and do include those primary directions)! Are you aware that there is an existing commercial astrology software called Morinus? http://www.astrosoftware.com/WimVanDamMorinus.htm Quote Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:00 pm
36 by Martin Gansten Deb wrote:The late 2nd century astrologer Antiochus, in part 15 of his Thesaurus, makes it clear there were three ways to determine aspects [...] The second is the determination of ?temporal aspects? (ie, aspects ?in mundo? used by many traditional astrologers and particularly championed by Placidus de Titus). Thanks again for pointing this out to me. I have read and re-read the Antiochus passage, and am not satisfied that his 'temporal aspects' and the 'mundane aspects' of Placidus actually amount to the same. I will start a new thread to discuss this. Quote Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:11 pm