Things get a lot easier if you use only directions of MC and Asc. Planet to planet directions remind me too much of solar arc directions.

On the other side planet to planet can be applied but from a theoretical point of view, the ecliptic wouldn't be the fixed frame, the radix. The Earth would be, in the sense that the planets should be projected in a mundane type like Placidus, Campanus or Regiomontanus or if only the meridian is to be used, the Meridian/equatorial system. In that case (and in my view only in this case) secondary motion of the planets should be used. However even then this would remind me of solar arc directions with their drawbacks in some possible cases.

However this is perhaps a more modern view of mine comparable with the discussion of a year ago whether semi arc directions shouldn't be combined with the placidian (mundane) positioning alone.

Eddy wrote:Things get a lot easier if you use only directions of MC and Asc. Planet to planet directions remind me too much of solar arc directions.

I just meant that with directions to planets or terms to angles is impossible to catch the directions because RA or OA remain the same whatever way you consider in the order of the signs or the contrary.
On the other hand with directions between planets you see very clearly which planet is moving and which is fixed, because we move the moving planet of its temporal hour (or which is the same its semiarc), we don't use the speed of the fixed planet.
At the end, semiarc is very easy, the easier one, comparing to all the rest, under the pole, Regio, mundane.

p.s. in a few hours we will see if you are right about Saturn-Jupiter opposition and the change of the powers in Italy.


margherita

The post was not explicitly a reply to yours Margherita, I hope I didn't cause some confusion. The remark was rather meant in general. With directed angles one only has to look in a house table or play a bit with the calculator, and there's no difficulty with the choice of a house system or secondary motion. When I look at pd's I only look at the directed angles, also because I'm afraid of getting too much directions with the planets included.

Indeed the semi-arc is the easiest method in planet to planet directions (or the Meridian system which is even easier but this more modern system doesn't use the horizon). Placidus in mundo isn't much more difficult I believe.

Tonight I'll have a look at the results of the elections, I'm curious if there will be a lot of change. Yesterday I read that Berlusconi's popularity is waning, about 38% of the Italians support him.

Tom wrote:I also tried to calculate by hand, but Kolev explained things using a scientific calculator, and trigonometry. It's been a long, long time since I ever did anything like that, and I simply could not recall what I would need in order to calculate with understanding.

When I started the trigonometry, I hadn't used the sin/cos/tan keys of my calculator for 10 years. It gives great satisfaction and helps a lot to visualize what actually is happening. Just give it a try. For a start, even only calculating your ascendant yourself is very satisfactory.

Eddy, let's put this in perspective. When I took trigonometry in high school calculators had not been invented yet. I wouldn't know where to begin with a calculator and I've forgotten where to begin without one.

This will either help you, Tom, or help you to despair.

http://www.clarku.edu/~djoyce/trig/

http://books.google.com/books?id=3kY4AA ... es&f=false

Martin Gansten wrote:Tom: I do deal with this in my book, but I know it's a confusing topic. Mostly it's a matter of semantics. So, briefly:

• When traditional authors speak of 'directing X', all they mean is that X is the significator in the traditional sense of signifying the matter under consideration (nothing to do with which point is moving).
  
  When they speak of 'directing X by direct motion', they mean that X is stationary or treated as stationary, and the other point (the promissor) is moved towards X by the primary motion from east to west. It is called direct because the promissor is ahead of the significator in zodiac.
  
  When they speak of 'directing X by converse motion', they mean that X is moved by the same primary motion from east to west towards the promissor, which is behind it in the zodiac.

In both cases, something is moved with the clockwise primary motion. If it is the promissor, we call it a direct direction; if it is the significator, we call it a converse direction. Nothing was ever really moved anti-clockwise before the end of the 19th century! (I am currently working on an article on the modern reinvention of the concept of 'converse directions', called Back to the Future.)

When Morin directed the MC to Mars in Gustav Adolf's chart, it was Mars that was moving towards the meridian. Similarly, directing the ascendant through the terms/bounds really means watching the terms pass over the eastern horizon. (Morin also directed the angles 'conversely' in the sense of moving their natal zodiacal degrees, again with the primary motion. Others, like Placidus, said that the angles could not be directed conversely.)

I hope that clears things up a bit.

I have to say that Martin is the only person that has been able to properly explain these terms and ideas and relate them to my observations. Thanks again for your insight, I look forward to your article-

Estebon_Duarte wrote:
I have to say that Martin is the only person that has been able to properly explain these terms and ideas and relate them to my observations. Thanks again for your insight, I look forward to your article-

I think the same.

When one uses simple words to explain difficult things- like Martin in his book, this is the evidence he understands and knows what he is talking about.

In Italy we are very skeptical about people who use complicate and exotic words, we call it Latinorum.

From Manzoni's Promessi Sposi we have learned that:

1) who uses Latin and exotic and difficult language out of the context- he just is trying to cheating and confusing others about the matter;

2) that he is not neither an expert of Latin or the thing he is talking about and wants just to play the expert without being it.

Who wants to communicate something uses a language the others can understand. And this in fact the case of Martin and his book about directions, he knows the subject and uses the words others can understand-
I look forward the next article too.
margherita

Tom wrote:Eddy, let's put this in perspective. When I took trigonometry in high school calculators had not been invented yet. I wouldn't know where to begin with a calculator and I've forgotten where to begin without one.

There's a bright side on this: when calculators were introduced in highschool, the kids forgot how to calculate. My highschool years were in the '80s and the sums with trigonometry in them were almost only with 30?, 60? and 45? angles which give round (or easy to express in numbers) results, so still could be done without calculators. In the first year of school we sometimes made use of (co)sine and tan tables instead of calculators. However I can imagine it still is difficult and new to others, I would have the same difficulty to understand computers without getting angry.

Because of the great benefit it gave to me I always try to stimulate others to experiment with trigonometry. I've even thought of writing something down with many illustrations in them, but I don't have much time or the (computer)drawing skills. Deb made an introduction to primary directions once, http://www.skyscript.co.uk/directions.html . It's good, but maybe a supplement with more pictures for getting insight in the basics would make it appear less abstract.

Martin Gansten wrote:I am currently working on an article on the modern reinvention of the concept of 'converse directions', called Back to the Future.)

I like this title, so much contents in so few words.

Martin and Margherita, I'd like to ask when the use of AC and MC as promissors was first introduced in the history of Primary Directions. Has it always been there, is old or relatively new?

This will either help you, Tom, or help you to despair

Both links will be helpful. I recall using the tables. I also recall that I liked this part of math and I may have been pretty good at it. The despair sets in when I noticed the book of tables of logarithms was first published in 1919. I'm not that old.

I agree that I am better off because I learned math without benefit of calculators. I saw the living definition of panic and confusion last week. I was on the road and I stopped for lunch. The computer system had broken down at the restaurant. Four young - very young, workers were gathered around the one who apparently knew how to use a calculator and was trying to figure out how to add up the bill and make change.

"There has to be a way to do this," offered one of the four. Well they figured it out. My bill came to $7.60 (I don't think they were bothering with the sales tax. Calculating a percentage and adding it to the total was too much to hope for. I gave the cashier $8.00. She turned to her calculator to figure out how much change to give me. I hope she never has to balance a checkbook.

Tom

PFN wrote:Martin and Margherita, I'd like to ask when the use of AC and MC as promissors was first introduced in the history of Primary Directions. Has it always been there, is old or relatively new?

Margherita has no idea unfortunately

She just remembers Placidus writes explicitly that angles cannot be directed by converse motion, which he says it's the horimea- when the significator moves against the order of the signs.

margherita