Skyscript Astrology Forum

james_m wrote:unique astrology,

do you work with the 45, or 135 degree aspect?

No.

james_m wrote:
however we do need to test these methods on people and events from the past and that is the most logical and first line of action in order to strengthen our understanding of these same methods/techniques..

I no longer have a passion for astrology and mostly work on the charts of people I know personally. I consider that my 40 years of chart work have been my test lab for the technique I use and do not have the slightest inclination to test it further. The charts presented at the links I provided are a tiny percentage of the tens of thousands of charts I have worked out through the years.

My initial goal when I began to study astrology was to see if I could pinpoint not just the day of an event but the time of day it would occur. As the technique I developed has done that (ranging from being exactly right to within 2 hours before or after occurrence [the time it takes for the MC to move 1? being about 2 hours] I am satisfied that I succeeded.

I have long wondered if there is a way of continuing to progress the lunar returns minute by minute beyond the initial contact of planets or midpoints to the progressed angles when an experience endures for hours beyond that time such as when a woman may be assaulted for hours before being murdered by a rapist but do not have the fire to explore that possibility further than I already have.

Bob

james_m wrote:if someone who actually claimed to know how to do primary directions would be so kind as to give up regular examples for others to learn by that would be helpful too, but one sees next to nothing of that [...] since we have next to no astrologers giving relevant examples of there use in real life, one is left to believe very few astrologers are actually using primary directions as they are either equally confused by the options, or due something else worse - they often don't apply!

Well. First of all, there are very few astrologers today who actually know how to use primary directions in the traditional way(s), so it would be misleading to compare the absolute number of blog or forum posts on the use of directions with those on, say, outer-planet transits, and conclude that the most blogged-about technique must be the most trustworthy.

Second, such informal forums are not necessarily the best way of passing on knowledge of a rather technical nature. Primary directions may not be rocket science, but they do require a bit of discipline to master. If I may be forgiven a bit of self-promotion, I do teach an entire course on the subject, with one-on-one tutoring via email. (A second and somewhat revised edition of my book is also being planned.)

Third, as already discussed on this thread, directions are not a stand-alone technique and never were. In a real consulting/predictive situation you have to look at the whole picture of radix, directions, annual techniques and transits. For astronomical reasons, sometimes directions are where the main action is, sometimes not. But if, for example, a particular significator is directed through unfavourable terms for several years, with no other directions bringing relief, the changes indicated by revolutions and profections from year to year are likely to bring only minor and temporary benefits in that area.

Martin Gansten wrote:

Ile wrote:He was pronounced dead on 01:01 PM PST (his father shot him at about 11:38 AM) on 1 April 1984, just few hours to his next Solar Return which falls in 14:47h (according to Morinus software) on 1 April 1984, but Janus Software and Delphic Oracle give 09:47 at the morning, which would say that Marvin was already in his 1984 revolution (return). [...] I suppose Janus and Delphic Oracle are more precise than Morinus (since both point out to one time), though Morinus is showing the same ascendant degree as DO and Janus.

Actually, the time is the same as well; it's just that Morinus displays UT rather than the local time zone. (The fact that the difference is exactly 5:00 hours is a clue.)

Just about any astro software does calculations using julian dates to get past the problem of time conversions during the calculation process, with sidereal time and delta time being needed for calculation of the angles. These would be correct on any established software. Then the decision of what to display to the user is either the local time or UT. Sometimes UT makes more sense because when iterating through transits, progressions or time lord sequences, you don't want to constantly be doing atlas and time zone querys for each and every instance (especially when in many areas in the world, time zone information is unreliable). This could bog down calculations to the point where a progress bar would be needed.

unique astrology,

thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and views. if you feel like saying how you work with midpoints, i would be curious.

martin,

thanks for sharing as well.. no one including me is suggesting the number of posts or comments on a blog matters.. i was hoping you would respond to my latest comments and i am glad you are plugging your work.. that is a good idea as i see it. also, i don't think anyone practicing astrology for longer then a year or two is naive enough to think there is a silver bullet in any one technique or approach and that, as we have already talked about on this thread, applies to solar returns along with primary directions, sun signs and etc. etc..

i don't doubt very few folks are doing primary directions by hand as well.. we have moved into a movement of doing astrology by computer.. i am sure there are pros and cons to this, the downside being astrologers like myself who don't fully appreciate the nuances involved in primary directions, to be able to more fully appreciate/understand them, at least from a mathematical pov.. that said, i don't think this is going to change and astrologers who have an interest in primary directions are going to want to incorporate them in their work. without being given direction on the best way to do that, it is going to be a work in progress. i read your book, enjoyed it and felt i learned from it. it didn't help me to make a firm decision on which were the best options to choose when setting the options on the morinus program though.. it would be very beneficial to see someone who has worked with them more fully, to witness their logic and application in use, not just with a few examples in a book. otherwise i see the significant role of primary directions as suggested by some including yourself, as being left unattended by astrologers more generally.

perhaps it doesn't serve your interests to share examples on an ongoing basis, but from my point of view it would encourage a greater interest in your primary direction course! perhaps you don't have many examples.. that would be less attractive!! perhaps the complexity of having to integrate primary direction data with other techniques is just too much to want to share publicly. i am going to start doing it on this forum as i see it as necessary.. i am hoping to get concrete feedback when i start to do it too from people like yourself. i am contemplating just where to start with public figures.. if you want to get the ball rolling - great! if not, i will eventually..

it is interesting and i am going on recall here, but in morins book on solar returns he did not discuss the primary directions in effect for the solar returns under examination all that much as i recall.. hopefully tom will correct me if i am wrong on this.. while solar returns might not be a stand alone predictive technique, i witness astrologers regularly pointing out characteristics of different predictive techniques in isolation from the bigger structure they might be examining, so i think it is fair to say we get certain impressions from each one of these techniques, even if they do or don't get confirmation in another auxiliary predictive technique which is considered a necessary requirement for making an informed comment or prediction..

2 examples have been given in this thread, unless my memory fails me - brubeck and marvin gaye.. i have tried to offer a perspective on primary directions at the same time.. i have not included much else, although the transit of saturn to brubecks moon/mars square has to be viewed as relevant from my point of view anyway..

i wanted to mention one other issue that popped up that someone might like to comment on as well. it had to do with tom mentioning that perhaps the reason we haven't gotten too far with primary directions is that bounds need to be considered. i have not been attracted to this avenue of meaning myself, so it isn't something i am keen to explore. same deal for me with terms.. i find the whole approach of bounds and terms very arbitrary and not making much sense to me, not to mention the plurality of choices one has if they want to get involved in this.. i am going to stick with the insights i feel i can get thru midpoints which is the modern equivalent to 'lots' as i see it..

Good morning,

Most Hellenistic astrologers considered the confines (bounds) as being quite important, about on the same level with domiciles, kingships ('exaltation' is taken from a not so precise Latin translation, if we follow for example Dr Benjamin Dykes), and elemental triangles. Various point systems were developed during the Mediaeval period.

Also some modern experts, ex. gr. Regulus Astrology, consider bounds very important.

Mr James M wrote:

"i find the whole approach of bounds and terms very arbitrary"

As usual, there is not one but are several approaches to bounds. Also to me most of them seem arbitrary with one exception: 'Chaldeaen bounds' that appear coherent to my limited mind, so i use them. See parallel threads.

Half-sums were not invented in the 20th century but some astrologer-authors, ex. gr. Herr Alfred Witte, greatly extended their use even to the point of eliminating 'aspects'. Half-sums are not identical to ex. gr. Hellenistic lots, especially not conceptually. There is, methinks, more resemblance to, for example, 'beseigement'.

Common to all 'ancient' schools of horoscopic astrology in contrast to some modern schools like Herr Reinhold Ebertin's is the inclusion of systems of essential and accidental honours and debilities rather than sole reliance on 'natural significations' of the planets. This distinction can be observed in all techniques including solar revolutions.

Best regards,

lihin

james_m wrote:i don't doubt very few folks are doing primary directions by hand as well.. we have moved into a movement of doing astrology by computer..

When I said 'in the traditional way(s), I didn't mean 'by hand' (nor did I mean using a goose quill). You can do traditional primary directions using computer software, but you need to know what you are doing with it. (And it is a good idea to be able to verify a result if in doubt.)

i read your book, enjoyed it and felt i learned from it. it didn't help me to make a firm decision on which were the best options to choose when setting the options on the morinus program though..

No, that wasn't the purpose of the book. I wanted to introduce directions as they were used by the 'Old Masters' of astrology, but (as I am sure you gleaned from the book) they differed on a number of points. If you want to do directions like Ptolemy, you need one set of options; if you want to emulate Lilly or Morin, you need others.

Certainly, if anyone wants to emulate Gansten, I'll be happy to tell what settings I myself use. I am not quite vain enough to think that a matter of great public interest, though.

it would be very beneficial to see someone who has worked with them more fully, to witness their logic and application in use, not just with a few examples in a book.

I'm not at all sure what it is you want that you can't find in a book. (Unless it's personal tutoring, which, as I said, I am already offering.)

perhaps it doesn't serve your interests to share examples on an ongoing basis, but from my point of view it would encourage a greater interest in your primary direction course! perhaps you don't have many examples.. that would be less attractive!! perhaps the complexity of having to integrate primary direction data with other techniques is just too much to want to share publicly.

No, it's none of your three options, or not exactly. I have plenty of examples, but as I work with real clients, I can't always share them even if I had the time and inclination. I'm always glad to help anyone who is making a serious study of the subject and gets stuck, even if they are not on my course. And it's not really the complexity of combining techniques that is a problem (it's not that complex), but rather lack of grounding. To communicate, people need to speak the same language; and I can't start all over with the basics every time I give an example (what does significator mean, what does promissor mean, what is direct or converse motion, etc). That's why I set up a course.

i am going to start doing it on this forum as i see it as necessary.. i am hoping to get concrete feedback when i start to do it too from people like yourself. i am contemplating just where to start with public figures.. if you want to get the ball rolling - great! if not, i will eventually..

Personally, I don't much like using the charts of public figures. The more public they are, the more often the birth time will be in dispute, and the more divergent the accounts of their personal lives will be. But I'll look into Astro-Databank and see what I can find to give at least one useful example based on traditional methods.

thanks martin,

it is all good.. i am too stubborn and poor to ask about tutoring, but if i was a different person in a different financial position, i would. the other part is i like to figure out things for myself for the most part.. this is probably the biggest part of this.. books are good, and if i had a friend more knowledgeable who i could talk on the phone, i would do that too. i will continue to stumble along and resonate with what appears to work.

i am curious what any of your personal preferences are though... in mundo, or zodiac positions or both? any other personal choices that you would care to share, i am interested in knowing.. thanks again martin!

james_m wrote:i am curious what any of your personal preferences are though... in mundo, or zodiac positions or both? any other personal choices that you would care to share, i am interested in knowing..

I direct by the semi-arc method and use only zodiacal directions, generally without latitude, though I do include conjunctions and oppositions with latitude based on experience. (A zodiacal conjunction/opposition with latitude will be identical to a mundane conjunction/opposition.)

Good evening,

The well known Bulgarian astrologer and author Dr Rumen Kolev published three illustrated booklets on primary directions, available from his web site, that together with Professor Gansten's book have much helped me learn about primary directions.

One can observe that some authors, advocates of primary directions, chose to include many or nearly all points, types and methods in their lists that, during the life of a native, can lead to hundreds of primary directions to pick and choose from. The 'astute astrologer' can then 'prove' astrology by finding matching primary directions for nearly everything at all times within a few days. Of course such an approach is obviously arbitrary, leading at best to tired smiles of sceptics.

But PDs would best be a topic for a separate thread, that, it appears, Professor Gansten has begun. My question for him would be to ask his considered opinion about the work of the early 19th century English astrologer Mr John Worsdale who published two astrological books with many examples and used primary directions extensively.

Best regards,

lihin

lihin wrote:But PDs would best be a topic for a separate thread, that, it appears, Professor Gansten has begun. My question for him would be to ask his considered opinion about the work of the early 19th century English astrologer Mr John Worsdale who published two astrological books with many examples and used primary directions extensively.

If you've read my Primary Directions, you'll know some of my views on Worsdale already. There is a little more in this paper. Basically, I think Worsdale is good entertainment value, if you like that kind of unintentional humour. It is possible to learn a bit of astrology from his books, if you are patient, but it is not quite my style of astrology. He is very Placidean and uses mundane aspects, minor aspects, etc, and he consistently miscalculates his converse directions. His views and style changed quite a bit between his two books, the first of which was published when he was just in his early twenties.

Martin has unintentionally but happily given me a lead-in to a topic I've been thinking of introducing, but strictly speaking does not belong in a thread on solar returns or primary directions for that matter:

Martin wrote:

Basically, I think Worsdale is good entertainment value, if you like that kind of unintentional humour. It is possible to learn a bit of astrology from his books, if you are patient, but it is not quite my style of astrology. He is very Placidean and uses mundane aspects, minor aspects, etc, and he consistently miscalculates his converse directions.

John Worsdale (1766 - c. 1826) uses a technique I've not seen elsewhere, yet at some level I think has real value. As Martin noted he uses everything, primaries, transits, converse directions etc, lists them chronologically according to the age at which the "hits" occur and then makes his predictions based on the time periods where the hits are all bunched up and pretty much saying the same thing. In other words he is using a piling up of testimonies of various techniques. Of course it is important that the hits be calculated accurately for this to work effectively, but we have the advantage over Mr. Worsdale with our computers, and more accurate tables. Still his is a time consuming method.

The question is, as always, does this method work? Well it's going to work in his book, we can be sure of that , but does it work anywhere else? I don't know. But if anyone is interested in pursuing this sort of thing, i.e. discussing a chart or two using something like Worsdale's methods, I'd be happy to start a thread dedicated to that.

CAVEAT: I do not want such a thread to be a place where we can throw mud on Mr. Worsdale or his techniques or go into excruciating detail on fine theoretical points. There is a place for that sort of thing, but the thread as I envision it, is not that place. It would simply be, "Can we find examples of his ideas working?"

I have Kolev's Placidus program and the Morinus program as well as other astrology programs, and can supply any data that might otherwise be difficult to obtain. Let me know here or in a private message, and I'll set something up, if there is sufficient interest. It would not be necessary to have a copy of Worsdale's text. I have one for reference should we need it. I even have an original (First Edition c 1828). This exercise would be more geared towards inquiry and fun rather than an attempt to verify something to a scientific certainty.