Ariondys wrote:(In Morinus I can set the AS, and MC as promissors(this then measures along the declination of that angle--I think Martin called this 'traditional converse' in his book) -- but I can't promitt the intermediate cusp(in morinus). And in Astro I can...
set of 16 aspects. 0, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 135, 150, 180
mundane, aspected from house lines to the ecliptic.

Mundane house cusps treated as promisors, aspects between promisor and promisor, aspects to and from cusps, semi and sesqui-square as well as quincunx...

These additions increase the number of available directions to choose from for any event, to the point that simple chance dictates that there will be a direction suitable for any event at any given moment of time. This proliferation of factors from my perspective greatly diminishes the validity of the olympian claims of universal accuracy of the followers of the Topocentric system.

Juan

Juan wrote:aspects between promisor and promisor

Is this done? I haven't read anything that led me to believe this

Juan wrote:These additions increase the number of available directions to choose from for any event, to the point that simple chance dictates that there will be a direction suitable for any event at any given moment of time. This proliferation of factors from my perspective greatly diminishes the validity of the olympian claims of universal accuracy of the followers of the Topocentric system.

I already thought I wanted to investigate this line of thinking, of chance and validity, so I will. This article seems to be well known by the followers of the Topocentric system.

Alexander Marr's article, "How Exact Must We Be?"
http://issuu.com/considerations/docs/02-1
page 69

...will demonstrate just how fast the seemingly large area of 21,600 arcminutes can be exhausted and how soon meaningful coincidence becomes indistinguishable from simple chance.

I thought maybe it wasn't all multiplied and divided out to completion

10 Planets to 10 Planets in both directions with 16 aspects got us the following:

21,600/2/10/10/16=6.75
by chance an average of 1 direction per 6.75 arcminutes

That's 1 way of saying it. Another way is a 1 arcminute orb should really be taking up 2 arcminutes(+ OR - 1'), so there would be a 1 in 3.375 a direction would complete by chance in the space of a 1' orb.

seperately considered...12 houses to 10 Planets. Marr said "The coincidence factor is 7.5 to 1
even if that sounded right to me(I get 21,600/2/10/12/16 = 5.625) Why multiply it out seperate?

How about 12 houses + 10 planets + 1 POF + 1 node = 24 points
21,600 / 2 / 24 /24 / 16 = 1.1719

The maximum orb of up to 4', in theory and practice results in an admissable average orb of two minutes of arc.

1.1719 / 4 = 0.293

Which is coincidence factor below 1. Especially if we continue and include directions the Epoch chart. Significance must now come from knowing what directions will be significant for what event!

A list of significant directions:
http://juanestadella.com/Predictive-Ast ... adella.pdf
page 65-71

we could multiply back up using a factor of 4 or less; a little over 3 houses (out of 12) are the average amount found to be significant. And by a factor somewhere around between 1 and 2-- A subset of the total amount of planets is significant.

And I believe our coincidence factor is >1.00 once more.

This might be questionable if we include the Epoch chart(E). R->R, E->R, R->R, E->E
Which would have us further dividing by 4.

Control and awareness is needed or the coincidence factor can drop below 1 (I'm looking Marrs Dual Test when I suggest this)

This control means not including everything that divides the coincidence factor. Not using all 24 factors to all 24 factors to find significance.

I believe seeing a significant direction for 1 event with 1 chart using (10 planets + 1 node) to 12 house cusps with a 5.5' orb falls in around 40-50%

Naturually more events will lead to lottery sized odds provided that coincidence factor was >1.00

Ariondys wrote:

Juan wrote:aspects between promisor and promisor

Is this done? I haven't read anything that led me to believe this

You are right. I was doing calculation by hand and did something wrong, so please disregard that part of my comment.

we could multiply back up using a factor of 4 or less; a little over 3 houses (out of 12) are the average amount found to be significant. And by a factor somewhere around between 1 and 2-- A subset of the total amount of planets is significant.

The problem I see here is that aspects of promisors to house cusps as significators are multi-valent: a quincunx to the 8th is also a quincunx to the 6th, a square to the 10th and to the 4th; an opposition to the 8th is also a conjunction to the second and a square to the 5th... etc. You can make anything fit almost any event this way.

Juan

Juan wrote: The problem I see here is that aspects of promisors to house cusps as significators are multi-valent: a quincunx to the 8th is also a quincunx to the 6th

Surely this depends on the house system employed, also many observe transits to house cusps as well, and the same problem may apply here as well.

Hello Juan,

Re: "These additions increase the number of available directions to choose from for any event, to the point that simple chance dictates that there will be a direction suitable for any event at any given moment of time."
Apparently, you don't understand what you're saying.

If your statement was correct that there are always appropriate Primary Directions for any event at any given moment of time, then (think about it) Polaris would not be able to distinguish between them with sufficient differentiation so that it could determine a correct birth time. It is easily demonstrable that it can do that.

In Polaris, each category of event has appropriate aspects stored in a database and with each particular aspect having a score, a weighting of just how appropriate that aspect is for that particular event.

As was mentioned, coming up with the correct minute is a 1/1440 feat. If I enter three events from Ken Haining's life, Polaris has no problem finding his minute of birth. Now, if ALL the moments have appropriate Primary Directions for ALL events, how in the world would Polaris see his actual birth moment as special??? Most rectifications take more dated-events, but the principle is still the same. Events -->Polaris -->Birthtime. With enough events, Polaris finds the birth time. If chance gave appropriate Primary Directions all the time, then Polaris should NEVER (beyond 1 time in 1440) be able to derive a well-documented birth time.

Also realize, please, that for every single time that Polaris finds the correct birth time, Polaris would have to fail 1439 other times in order for it to be "performing at chance levels."

Re: "This proliferation of factors from my perspective greatly diminishes the validity of the olympian claims of universal accuracy of the followers of the Topocentric system."

There is nothing in that comment to debate. I am sure from your perspective that you believe it to be true.

Personally, rather than polling how people feel about it, I'd much rather look at actual examples and the mathematics involved.

Take care

James

Atlantean wrote:My point, though, is that the algorithm, when it is able with just a very few events to go right to the person's documented birth time, this 1/1440 chance of success, having been realized, is a statement to the fundamental correctness of the algorithm.

Right but the other way of looking at this is that normally you cannot do this with so few events, you need many events and ultimately there is still some judgement I believe? I think to get the time even with a 15 minute or 30 minute window would be very impressive though (even though I know that this is not what we're looking for here).

On a skeptic site where we were discussing a similar test (they chickened out in the end), we had devised the idea of a 5 minute window, since that would take care of slightly incorrectly recorded birth times, while still maintaining relatively long odds. (1 in 288)

I would have been very interested in following that thread. Is there a link?

Illogical. You are stating that her stating 12:31:30 implies less precision and less believability than if she would have self-rounded the time off to 12:32.

Not quite, I'm saying that in order for her to say "not the time, not the time, not the time, NOW, now is the time" some single event must have happened. But what? Do astrologers universally agree upon what this event is? Should we trust that her watch was correct? I think no matter how accurately she herself believes she recorded the time, as astrologers we first need to ask some questions about what exactly was recorded and how likely it is for this recording to be accurate - particularly down to the level of seconds which seems fantastical to me.

Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Asc, MC, POF, Intermediate House Cusps, all aspects based on 30? as well as Semisquare and Sesquisquare.

Okay that sounds good, I'm not someone who uses the semisquare and sesquisquare so I guess we would have to agree upon what these aspects mean, and what likely scenarios we might see for them such that their presence would be astrologically meaningful to a given event. Similarly we would have to agree what to make of the inconjuncts, I have my own understanding of them but they may not be the same for you.

Empiricism. Tens of thousands of individual events have already been analyzed.

Ah, yes, empiricism, but whose? We need to know ahead of time what kind of things we might expect to be meaningful, otherwise we run into a problem where something apparently meaningless is, secretly, very meaningful but the rest of us just didn't know it.

Can't we basically agree on the House cusp meanings at this point?

I hope so, there'd be some contentious issues that would be best to be agreed upon first though. Career - 6th or 10th? Do you differentiate it with 'work'? Monetary losses you say as 2nd, makes sense, how do you use the PoF? Would it have relevance here? Sex - 5th? 8th? 7th? etc. Mother - 4th or 10th?

I can only verbalize relating to what I have seen that works. I have nothing to add in a discussion about what doesn't work. Naibod IS the key and we are basically using Carl K?hr's method with the addition of Tococentric House Cusps.

Unfortunately for the rest of us we need to be agnostic about what works and doesn't work. We shouldn't rule out testing other house systems with other varieties of directions or keys. You may have answered this already, but is it in mundo or zodiac? Sounds like zodiac from what you later say, but just for clarity?

The cusp is the "hot point". That's really the only consideration.

Someone correct me if I'm messing this up, but the cusp is the point on the zodiac, it is without latitude/declination. But a planet, if we consider declination, may reach the 'circle' of a house at a point which is different to the zodiacal position.

I have no problem from that, with the one possible exception of Martin having already shown a strongly traditional stance on this technique and so very closed-minded about the idea that an inconjunct (for example) can be considered an aspect in Primary Directions. It most certainly is.

Okay, the traditional angle aside, I mention him only because he, literally, wrote the book on the subject and he's a member of this community. If he's willing to play along I suspect he may have some insightful comments.

Atlantean wrote:Personally, rather than polling how people feel about it, I'd much rather look at actual examples and the mathematics involved.
Take care
James

I posted a list of 18 biographical events 3 days ago, I was hoping you would use Polaris to find a suitable time, and that we can discuss the results. Maybe you didn't see it?

Juan

Juan

I suspect we're not all wanting to examine the same thing here, which is understandable but perhaps explains James' confusion or hesitation. On the one hand we're discussing comparing Topocentric with Placidus, on the other you're asking for a demonstration of just Topocentric rectification.

Keeping this in mind, we might need to recognise that James is just a working astrologer offering his time freely here, but his own interest may also be more about comparison, or at least understanding where the goalposts are first. I think, from my point of view, this is what I've been first trying to establish - the boundaries of this mini-experiment/comparison with the houses.

Paul wrote:one hand we're discussing comparing Topocentric with Placidus, on the other you're asking for a demonstration of just Topocentric rectification.

This is still with the comparison to Placidus in mind, and in line with what he has been asking repeatedly in this and other threads.

I have claimed that what James calls "Topocentric" is in reality a combination of several choices that go beyond the "topocentric under the pole" calculations, such as Naibod's arc, "in zodiaco" rather than "in mundo" positions, using house cusps as promisors, adding more aspects, adding aspects to mundane cusps, etc.. I am interested in exploring how (or if) similar results can be obtained using different choices, particularly with Placidus semiarc and Placidus under the pole and various keys to convert arc into time.

The proliferation of factors and how this approaches the laws of chance, as well as forcing a chart to fit a subjective assignment of meaning to an event which is at the basis of rectification, is pertinent to all systems of direction (and to all Astrology), and is part of any comparison between the Topocentric and other more traditional methods.

Juan

Juan wrote:

we could multiply back up using a factor of 4 or less; a little over 3 houses (out of 12) are the average amount found to be significant. And by a factor somewhere around between 1 and 2-- A subset of the total amount of planets is significant.

The problem I see here is that aspects of promisors to house cusps as significators are multi-valent: a quincunx to the 8th is also a quincunx to the 6th, a square to the 10th and to the 4th; an opposition to the 8th is also a conjunction to the second and a square to the 5th... etc. You can make anything fit almost any event this way.

Hmm. I believe it is so. It doubles the amount of significant houses.

It cancels out though. The proliferation of permutations: 12 houses * 16 aspects * 11 points

1/2 of those permutations are going to produce twin results.

(No to the 6th and 8th idea. Unless they are, or become sextile)

Juan wrote:I have claimed that "Topocentric" is in reality a combination of several choices that go beyond the "topocentric under the pole" calculations, such as Naibod's arc, mundane and not zodiacal positions, using house cusps as promisors, adding more aspects, adding aspects to mundane cusps, etc.. I am interested in exploring how (or if) similar results can be obtained using different choices, particularly with Placidus semiarc and Placidus under the pole and various keys to convert arc into time.

I almost understand the topocentric primary direction system. There is that sense of combining some choices. It could be quite difficult to express my concepts clearly...

On one side of the equation(as though houses are significator), the houses are as simple as progressed or regressed houses: measuring the arc at the declination of the planet. Produces rising and culminating times that actually occurred on the day.

On the other side(as though houses are promittor), the celestial point of the house cusp is the declination at which to measure the arc. This is just like keeping relative house position of the planet while the whole house structure is progressing. Does not produce real sky situations that occured on the day.

It seems more comprehensive to me, and actually fairly simple. Combining traditional converse with direct, and neoconverse with neodirect(sorry for making up words), becomes as simple as just measuring all the arcs.

I think I would classify it as an "under the pole", but I don't understand how the MDO, which defines what pole to use, is calculated. PHI = atan(tan(latitude)*(MDO/90))

It's profoundly unlikely different choices of key can produce the same results. I can imagine a system I believe will produce similiar results, because PHI is is quite similiar when not using the supposed conical distortion by using a spherical only topocentric-like system. Assuming anyone followed my 1st post far enough to test it for themselves.

Placidus under the pole doesn't give the same results. Under the pole in any other house system is also profoundly unlikely to produce the same results.

Placidus under the pole should give similiar results though. Similiar is not the same though, spot checks with my chart show a difference of a couple weeks or couple months.

http://alabe.com/Manual_placidus5_1.pdf
page 17

THE SYSTEM OF ERICH CARL KUEHR.
Now, we will explain and concentrate in a nutshell the primary system of this German astrologer from the first half of the 20th century.

Kuehr used exclusively Placidian Under the Pole directions. Let us remember that there are also Placidian Classic Directions and for now, the author of this program is of the opinion that exactly these directions are the most efficient of all.

Kuehr used the key of Naibod and calculated direct and converse Placidian under the Pole directions.

Kuehr directed planetary aspects with zodiacal latitude zero. However, he passed the proportional horizon through the body of the significator.

Kuehr used the directions in the solar and the Lunar Return charts with same purposes as he did with the Primary Ingressions and the Day directions: MAKING MORE PRECISE the time when a bigger direction will have its event. Kuehr looks for directions in the Solar and Lunar charts that have the same character as the big direction scrutinized and falling in a time interval again of +-3 months from the hitdate of the big direction. He says that the solar directions can pinpoint the event of a bigger direction with exactness of +- 3 days while the Lunar ones: with exactness of +- 6 hours.

with no computers
----------
http://regulus-astrology.com/pdf/PD%20- ... ctions.pdf
page 10-11

Interplanetary Directions ? Placidus Under the Pole
II. Formula for the Pole of the Significator
If significator is above the horizon: Pole = arctan(1/tan(dec of sig) * sin(upper meridian distance of sig * ascensional difference of sig / diurnal semi arc of sig))

If significator is below the horizon: Pole = arctan(1/tan(dec of sig) * sin(lower meridian distance of sig * ascensional difference of sig / nocturnal semi arc of sig))

Interplanetary Directions ? Placidian Mundo
Placidian Mundo Directions have a completely different technical assumption than do zodiacal primary directions. They are two very different animals. For those first learning primary directions for the first time, I recommend approaching the methods separately. Master one before moving to the next. Whether one starts with zodiacal and moves on to mundo or vice versa doesn't matter. Try to study both at the same time and risk losing one's sanity!

Oops, forgot about preserving my sanity.

Hello Paul,

Re: "Right but the other way of looking at this is that normally you cannot do this with so few events, you need many events and ultimately there is still some judgement I believe?"

For clarity, Polaris "spits out" a list of potential birth times based specifically on the correctness of the Primary Directions across the entire list of events. Using various other systems (normally, Secondary Progressions, Progressed Sidereal Solar Returns, etc.), these given times are checked to see which one of these times also works perfectly in these other systems. [There is NO way to influence Polaris' output other than through what events are entered and the Search Range that is given. For instance, if I were doing a rectification and I really, really liked the 7? Libra area, there is no way to bias this particular location. Polaris literally searches every moment in the search range and does a weighted, cumulative look across all the events in the event list and it does so EXCLUSIVELY with Topocentric Primary Directions.]

If I were stating how this normally proceeds... it's:

1) Enter birth date/place in Polaris

2) Enter events in Polaris

3) Give Polaris a search range and have it examine all PD's for each moment in range

4) Using other reliable methods, see which time coming from Polaris is the correct one

Re: "I think to get the time even with a 15 minute or 30 minute window would be very impressive though (even though I know that this is not what we're looking for here)."

Yes. I agree. I have seen so many rectifications that are (even on face value) completely incorrect...so any technique that reliably brings one to within 15 minutes is a relative unknown. There is a great article from Isaac (Starkman) that shows how the Progressed Sidereal Solar Return can be used to narrow down the size of the Search Range.

Re: "I would have been very interested in following that thread. Is there a link?"

It was about 2 years ago, I would say. I know the person running the blog was named George and that his site is basically about radical skepticism. Perhaps using ODdOnLifeItself (my likely handle on that site) and George and the terms rectification and skeptic might take you to it. I hope you do find it...there was a lot of details, including mathematical probabilities, that were discussed there...

Re: "Not quite, I'm saying that in order for her to say "not the time, not the time, not the time, NOW, now is the time" some single event must have happened. But what? Do astrologers universally agree upon what this event is?"

There would be this exact same problem in the Rodden-AA data, since we don't know what constituted the moment of birth as per the person recording the birth time. My point was that someone watching the birth and pinning it to the second has (all other things being equal) all the earmarks of someone paying close attention and therefore not very far off. [Don't forget as was mentioned earlier... the Rodden data is way x:00, x:15, x:30, and x:45 heavy... since births occur at all times, this means undeniably that a large part of the Rodden-AA database is off by at least one minute! I would guess the average to be at least 5 mins!]

Re: "Should we trust that her watch was correct?"

The Primary Directions show (quite clearly actually) that it was right to within 4 seconds of time, perhaps 2.

Re: "Okay that sounds good, I'm not someone who uses the semisquare and sesquisquare so I guess we would have to agree upon what these aspects mean..."

They're both stressful aspects, but as in all aspects, a lot of it depends more on the specific planets than on the specific aspects. In other words, a positive aspect between two malefics is more likely "bad". A negative aspect between two benefics is more likely "good." In Primary Directions, the aspect is (by far) not nearly as important as the bodies involved.

Re: "and what likely scenarios we might see for them such that their presence would be astrologically meaningful to a given event. Similarly we would have to agree what to make of the inconjuncts, I have my own understanding of them but they may not be the same for you."

Please don't hang on the specific aspects, it's quite honestly not that critical. Think of it this way...all the 30 degree divisions are connectors. The semisquare and sesquisquare are also valid.

Re: "Ah, yes, empiricism, but whose?"

Alexander Marr (hundreds of rectifications, thousands of events analyzed), Isaac Starkman (even moreso), Juan Estadella, and myself.

Re: "We need to know ahead of time what kind of things we might expect to be meaningful, otherwise we run into a problem where something apparently meaningless is, secretly, very meaningful but the rest of us just didn't know it."

Juan Estadella put his Predictions book online (for free). Just go download it... it goes into detail about specific aspects. One thing that has to be realized is that there are often several Primary Directions that go into a specific event. They often spell out the connecting ramifications or other elements of the event. Think of (general) Astrology's "rule of three" and you'll get the idea exactly.

Re: "Career - 6th or 10th?"

Usually, at the time of a positive career move, we have the 3rd Cusp (environment), MC, or Asc combined with (first) the Sun, (second) Jupiter, or (third) the Moon, etc.

Re: "Sex - 5th? 8th? 7th? etc."

Sex, starting relationships, marriage....all tend to occur under Dsc, MC, or 5th Cusp emphasis. (Often Venus, Moon, Node, and Jupiter for Men...and Sun, Jupiter, Mars, and Node for Women)

Re: "Mother - 4th or 10th?"

A square to the 4th is a square to the 10th. A trine to the 4th is a sextile to the 10th. However, I will say that conjunctionswise, Death of the Mother shows up more with the IC than with the MC.

Re: "Okay, the traditional angle aside, I mention him only because he, literally, wrote the book on the subject and he's a member of this community. If he's willing to play along I suspect he may have some insightful comments."

Insightful comment giver sounds great.... self-appointed Grand Poobear and final arbiter of Truth, not so much.

Take care

James