Skyscript Astrology Forum

Martin Gansten wrote: Much of what seems difficult about primary directions is really a matter of understanding the technical terms empoyed by older authors. I have devoted a substantial amount of space to explaining them in my book (which is now nearly finished).

I hope you will make easy to buy it. For me sometimes it's difficult to buy books abroad and I would love a lot having it.

Margherita

Gjiada wrote:I hope you will make easy to buy it. For me sometimes it's difficult to buy books abroad and I would love a lot having it.

Thanks. I don't want to change this thread into 'Martin plugs his new book', but let me just mention again that it will be published by The Wessex Astrologer, who will be responsible for the distribution. I don't think it will prove hard to get.

Hi Rob,

Exquisitely.The zodiacal directions without latitude are correctly.The declination parallels(to Asc,MC)are as well.I will check the interplanetary de.par.

Regards,
Petr

Petr wrote:Exquisitely.The zodiacal directions without latitude are correctly.The declination parallels(to Asc,MC)are as well.I will check the interplanetary de.par.

Hi Petr,
Thanks again for your help.
I have uploaded this afternoon an important bugfix (timing-bug fixed in changelog).
This is a Primary Direction-forum and not about me so I will contact you via your private email.

regards,
rob

Some thoughts and comments after reading Martin Gansten's book:
As an astrologer who is working with primary directions for 25 years I'm happy to see any new book on this subject, we have so few books in English devoting to this thrilling subject.
Martin's explanations are very lucid incomparable and for this he deserved a full mark.
Martin prefer to use the sidereal zodiac which is nowadays not the standard and I assume most of the astrologers, if they want to follow the examples, the first thing they done is to convert the charts to the more familiar tropical zodiac, but for 5 charts it is time consuming as Martin didn't gave the data, only the positions. This is very annoying, why I have to waste time in order to reconstruct the date, time and city?
Martin used only 3 famous personalities and the funny thing is that for all of them, at least judging by appearance and character, the Tropical Ascendant is much more suitable than the Sidereal. Aquarius rising for the Pope Ratzinger? He is perfectly Pisces rising. River Phoenix is perfectly Scorpio rising and not Libra and Anna Lindh, at least by the appearance is for sure not Sagittarius rising.
Martin used only the classical planets. OK, this is his choice, but just because the book is dealing entirely with the old Masters' methods, I personally don?t think that it is right to ignore the transsaturian planets as if we are living in the 17th century. Most astrologers working with primary directions will not ignoring these very important planets. I wish astrologers will also investigate Eris and Sedna. Primary directions are an ideal tool to examining the new planets.
In Chapter 2, Martin didn't mention the Topocentric primary direction even in one sentence, although he mentioned that in Kolev and Plantiko's programs there is an option to use this system. I don't know why he preferred to finish his history survey with Carl Kuhr as if nothing happened after 1936. Perhaps Topocentric system is too much provocative.
Martin mentioned that rectification is important but all the examples in the books are not rectified charts. Working with primary directions without rectifying the chart is like doing a physical experiment without calibration the measurement instrument. Of course the result will be a false. My rectification for River, based on 8 events is 40 seconds later and for Ratzinger, based on 20 events is 2 minutes earlier.
Martin of course chooses examples that do have primary directions for the events he selected. He failed to mention that there can be some events that don?t have any primary direction. In fact, I don't know of any system that it is covering 100 percent of all the events. I think that he mentioned the fact that can be primary aspects without events: this can be explained when one is using Alexander Marr's Dual Test method.
On page 52 Martin claimed that according to his experience directions with angles are NOT more important as planet to planet aspects. My experience with over 20000 events is that they are the most important. In fact, in most cases, angular directions are the most dominant aspects and the most important aspects for rectification as Martin wrote on p. 61.
Martin is using orb of 6 months and maybe more. What was good enough for the old Masters is not good enough for our era with computers and additional planets. On the other hand I don't accept Dr. H.'s zero orb dream.
Martin didn't find secondary directions helpful (p.140). I have found them very effective and in many cases, they are more important than the primary directions! But one should use the Solar Arc in Right Ascension for direction MC.
Two examples for River's chart:
On 27 Feb 1989 he received the Best Supporting Actor honor:
In primary directions using Topocentric system converse MC 60 Mercury orb 2 days and MC 180 NN orb 60 days. In secondary progress MC 60 Jupiter orb 5 days!
For his death, in primary directions, directed Asc 180 Saturn orb 5 days and directed cusp VIII 60 Mars orb 15 days. In secondary, converse MC 60 Saturn orb 60 days. (In secondary the orb can be 70 days for all the aspects).
Martin also didn't find Solar Return useful. Again, this is the result when one refuses to use modern techniques.
For the Pope, in the solar return with precession corrected, which is Martin's default return, Pluto exactly on MC.
In the converse solar return, Venus exactly on Asc.
In the tropical solar return for April 2004, covering John Paul II's death on 2 April 2005, Neptune exactly on IC.
Marin's book is neither a text book nor a tutorial and there is no example with several events. It is very easy to adjust a chart for one or two events; it is more difficult to do this for 15 events. Martin just described the techniques, which he did it very well, gave the list of the programs and as if saying: dear fellows, you have to tackle with this staff yourself. My heart is with the astrologers, especially the beginners, who have to test with several methods, several keys, in Mundo or in zodiac? as Tom once wrote one can go nuts trying to come up with a system.
All in all, I recommend this book to all astrologers, and as for all the faults (from my perspective of course) we have to wait for another book.

Thank you Isaac, for the mini-review

I am glad that you reviewed this book now, it was TIMELY. My wife had put the book in the ShoppingCart at Amazon.de and as I was looking at it, I told her to not order it, but wait until I made sure that it was something that I really wanted.

I must say, from reading commentary on here, that I was quite excited at the thought of a definitive book on Primary Directions. I had a feeling that it would be "history heavy" based on the title of the book, but I did not contemplate that the presentation would leave out so much newer material. ie. Embracing the past is fine as long as one doesn't ignore the present!

So much work has been done in refining this technique and I hate to see it ignored in a book that appears to be the "end all" guide to Primary Directions. In short, (in my opinion) writing a book about Primary Directions and leaving out the important work of Page, Polich, Marr, etc. is like writing a tome on 20th Century Popular Music and reducing Elvis and the Beatles to a footnote.

From my own studying of this technique, I can say that Topocentric Primary Directions DO WORK. When I was first trying to get Topocentric Primary Directions to function in my various computer programs (Kepler, Janus, Solar Fire, WinStar, Morinus...), I tried EVERY conceivable setting/option and 1) True Topocentric Primary Directions were nowhere to be found, despite what supposed options were available (even the Topocentric Houses and Topocentric Coordinates yielded some new creation, that was definitely NOT Topocentric Primary Directions) and 2) No setting or option gave symbolically correct results to the events in my life. (In short, I found the other systems useless in a practical sense!) A book that concentrates on other methods and ignores the one that actually gives the most reliable results seems inexcusable in this day and age of information proliferation. [Martin, were Marr's techniques and findings not studied and compared to see what actually works and what doesn't? It's a poignant question.]

The very first thing that I noticed when beginning my studies was that TINY changes in birthtimes resulted in relatively large changes in the timeline of the maturation of aspects. In short, a very exact birthtime is needed to use this technique. To have unrectified charts in the PREMISE only ensures that the conclusion must also be faulty.

Re: No trans-Saturnian planets

This one, I just do not understand. It's like saying, "I am an astrologer, but I won't use a computer because Morin didn't use one." It just makes no sense whatsoever. It is as if to say that all of these years of OBSERVATION has yielded nothing usable, which is ridiculous just on the face of it...more ridiculous upon deeper inspection.

Re: Only 3 famous examples

That's one of the things that I love about Alexander Marr's books. There are PLENTY of examples...many personages and many events. There is so much more that happens in the ocean than can be seen by looking at the surface! It is important to have these many examples, that is the "meat" of the technique, seeing the correspondences in a case-by-case, event-by-event way.

There are other "issues" with the book that you have mentioned. I can already see that, though you recommend the book, I can see personally that I will get more frustration at what was left out unnecessarily than at what was included gratuitously. I am not saying that it's not a worthwhile book, I am only saying that I am not really in its target audience. (I use: Tropical, NOT sidereal. All planets, not a self-limiting "selection". Topocentric!)

I do hope that this book sells very well. It just might be fuel for the fire in getting someone to write another book bringing this all up to date AND perhaps some of the people that have their interest in Primary Directions titillated by this book, just might take it further and incorporate the important findings from the 1960's onward.

As it is, the ShoppingCart is emptied; however, I am not saying that I wouldn't eventually buy the book. It just needs one magical word, perhaps, to convince me to buy it still; Addendum.

Peace

Central Scrutinizer

Hi Isaak and CS,

your critique ? especially CS ? sounds a bit harsh to me. I have to strike a blow for the book, I find it excellent. I liked the historic perspective and comparisons. I have not found that before.

The book is a paperback with 143 pages; including Glossary, Bibliography and Index it has 193 pages. Knowing this from the advertising, I did not expect heaps of examples. But what was packed together in 143 pages is really remarkable.

The question why Martin didn?t go more into detail with respect to Topcentrics and other recent developments (I think of the ideas of P. Svarogich or Vitaly Krivodub) must be answered by him.

Ren?

Doesn't the title give us a clue? It clarifies that he is covering 'The Old Master's Technique'.

Although I have seen the book I haven?t actually read it all yet. But I?m sure that one of the reasons it is being so well received is because it communicates information that many modern astrologers find impossible to understand in other works. And many astrologers do specifically want to know how this technique was used by the older authorities.

However, it is probably fair comment to point out that this is not a fully comprehensive book or the last word on the subject. On the other hand, there are very few books that can be equally well received by both beginners and experts ? they have to find their target. I can imagine that *most* astrologers will get something very useful from this book, and the fact that Martin has made it look so simple is to his credit.

Incidentally, I have spent the last few days attending Martin?s workshop and what was clear to everyone is that Martin knows this subject inside out and back to front. He is a great communicator and I recommend anyone thinking of running a similar workshop elsewhere to get in touch with him, as I know he is open to the idea of doing that kind of event elsewhere. I did try to get him to dump the sidereal zodiac and become a tropical astrologer, but he seemed resistant, as if he?d already thought the matter through beforehand Still, it didn?t cause any problems to the examples or explanations given in the workshop.

I too find these reviews a little harsh.

Many of us are not interested in modern techniques, and if the book was focused on them I would not buy it.

The only thing I agree that it's a pity data are withheld, like this it's impossible to re-do the examples.

I understand privacy need but maybe Martin could choose famous charts.

for the rest the book is perfect in my opinion

margherita

I am a neophyte when it comes to primary directions, mainly because until now the math has seemed to be beyond me, and I was incompetent to assess the value of anything I read on the subject without a clear understanding of the processes involved. Martin's book has enabled me to follow the logic behind the numbers, and he has done this without sacrificing a sense of the beauty and interconnectedness of the structures he describes. He has included chapter summaries, footnotes, a glossary, bibliography and index which I have referred to time and again in my (now) three readings of the book, and each time I go to the well I find that I am able to dip the bucket a little deeper.

At just under 200 pages, I wasn't expecting this to be the definitive work on a vast subject; rather, I hoped that it would serve as an introduction to technique and a point of departure for further studies - and I've not been disappointed. The author assumes that his reader is traveling a long road, and this book offers guidance and signposts along the way. Martin neither espouses nor decries specific techniques, instead stating which methods and approaches he has found most reliable in his own work. In a field as rich and deep as this, I value the fact that he offers hints and "nudges" as often as broader, bolder statements.

I see this book as a thrust block to my own launch into the space of primary directions, and with the author's guidance and bibliography I will eventually be able to arrive at reasoned personal decisions about my own approach to the field. I suspect that the author had something like this in mind when he planned the book, and I can only imagine how much material he had to leave out in order to make the book accessible to someone like myself (at the same time offering insights for readers more practiced in the field of primary directions).

While I understand how people with a great deal of experience of primary directions might wish to see more detailed descriptions of methods and worked examples (with data, which I, too, would have appreciated), my sense is that the author's aim was to present an overview of traditional approaches to a subject whose subsidiary paths are many and winding. I think that he has succeeded, and in doing so he has laid the groundwork for further expositions (should he choose to write more on the subject).

I really want to buy this book but I'm poor. Please make sure this book is in print for a while! I took Zoller's course, and I understand the math, but I'd love to see another treatment on the subject. I'm excited to read it.

I wanted to say something about this

CentralScrutinizer wrote:Thank you Isaac, for the mini-review
Re: No trans-Saturnian planets

This one, I just do not understand. It's like saying, "I am an astrologer, but I won't use a computer because Morin didn't use one." It just makes no sense whatsoever. It is as if to say that all of these years of OBSERVATION has yielded nothing usable, which is ridiculous just on the face of it...more ridiculous upon deeper inspection.
Central Scrutinizer

First of all traditional astrologers today know about the outer planets. Some use them. I can't speak for all traditional astrologers, but I can definitively say why I don't use them.

The basic framework of traditional astrology was pretty stable for at least 1500 years, probably longer. Modern astrology is about 150 years old. In traditional astrology there is a lot you can do with those measly 7 planets. In fact it's a complete system. Why? Well, because countless numbers of astrologers worked with the system for millennia.

The reason why I don't personally use them has a lot to do with the essential dignities. If you can say you don't understand how we can't use the outers, I can say I don't understand how most modern astrologers can't use the essential dignities. I couldn't do a chart without them. The outers aren't part of them at all. There is no term of Neptune or Uranus decan. Their modern rulerships of signs are practically useless to me, and the best I can do with the outers is use them like fixed stars. However whenever I did this, all it did was add to what I already saw in the chart. It was as if the chart already said "here is a round orange", and the outer planets were telling me "yeah but it's a round ORANGE orange". So I decided to keep to the basics. It gets right to the point.

You don't have to use every point in the sky. I also don't use asteroids, satellites, or the moons of other planets. Somehow I squeak by.

I am sorry that the review or commentary comes across as harsh to some people.

It was impossible for me to keep some of my DISAPPOINTMENT out of my comments. As I mentioned in that very commentary, I was VERY excited at the idea of a book coming out that would finally present Primary Directions in a way that they deserve. I see that this is more a historical retrospective of the technique and more along the lines of what "traditionalists" perhaps would be looking for...though, hopefully, they also scratch their heads at the sidereal examples.

Some elements of astrology are art and some are science. To me, presenting Primary Directions without any REAL look as to what has happened in the MANY intervening years, would be similar to writing a book on ancient navigating and leaving out the idea that in the meantime, we've discovered the Earth isn't actually FLAT.

I don't want to argue about it. If you want to buy the book, by all means do so. Isaac suggested that everyone SHOULD buy it. I can't think of anything NICER to put in a book review, except (hypothetically) "order it and I'll pick up the tab."

As for me, I read Isaac's review and compared what APPEARS to be in the book with what I would WANT in such a book, with what I think SHOULD be in the book. It's totally from my perspective that I write. I cannot be surprised that OTHERS, WHO ARE LOOKING FOR DIFFERENT THINGS FROM THE BOOK, have a different perspective. This is life.

My bottom line is, THINGS THAT WORK AND HOW TO MAKE THEM WORK BEST. I have no inherent loyalties to any particular technique. Show me something better and the old is suddenly so much flotsam and jetsam!!!

As an example... if you (anyone) worked with Solar Returns and suddenly, when using precession-correction, everything GELS; you would be put off by a book about Solar Returns that suggested no need to precession-correct because Somebody de Somewhere suggested that they don't need to be, WHEN YOU PERSONALLY HAVE SEEN OTHERWISE. That is my problem with leaving out the newer information, it OBSCURES what works best. I vote for LESS OBFUSCATION, NOT MORE.

As I said, I am not here to argue about it and I don't want to argue about it. Now, at least my PERSPECTIVE is understood and from that hopefully an understanding of where my "harsh" commentary comes from.

I would love a comparison of the old master technique side-by-side with newer "revelations" about Primary Directions. I mean, if the old ways STAND, because they could STAND THEN, then they should (if they are to continue having value) STILL BE ABLE TO STAND NOW.

Central Scrutinizer