It's confusing why anyone who has their "Technique" down and can't understand why astrologers write what they do even buy and read new books.
with all the ridiculous ways to "do" Astrology it is just as ridiculous to think any one book is going to "do it for you", that's why every astrologer feels it necessary to write a book.
i guess the disclaimer with Martin's book should be "only buy if interested in traditional astrology!"
If you follow the Traditional way to do PD's, Martin's book is fabulous and right on the mark. Interestingly enough, this topic is in "Traditional Techniques"!
don't be perplexed at the lack of TransSaturn planets in this forum or in books written for people in this section.
I say if you have the book and don't like it, put that baby on Amazon for cheap! There are alot of people like Mithra6 who would like to have a copy!

I agree very much with what Astraea has already written here. There has clearly been an immense amount of work and if I may say so love put into the production of this work.

Siderealism? So what? it really has little relevance to the technique of primaries what zodiac the author is putting over. The author is only being true to his own vision of astrology.

Too much history? Far from it. Its great to have a book that puts the astrological technique of Primary Directions into a clear historical context.

Too traditional? I guess some people do miss the outer planets. However, many traditionalists will be relieved to see them left out. Either way I dont think anyone reading the book wanting to use outer planets will be at a serious disadvantage. One point I want to particularly emphasize is that the book underlines the importance of a planets position by dignity, house, aspect etc in the radix in asessing their influence by PD. You find none of this in Rumen Kolev's booklets. He just emphasizes the influence of the planets as natural sifgnificators by primary direction.

Disappointing? Well I guess you cant please everyone and we are all entitled to a view. Personally, I find the book fascinating and very well crafted. I am not sure what more could really be asked of one book.

Example charts? The witholding of data in example charts was a tad disappointing. It might have been better to use well known celebrities instead. This is the only criticism of the book I would concede but I dont see it as a serious flaw. Its the kind of book that motivates you to go off and look at your own chart examples. Its the detailed explanation of the the varying texchniques I needed not lots of chart examples. I suppose if he chooses the author could follow this up with a book more focused on delineation.

Perhaps this isn't the book for die hard veteran practitioners of primary directions wanting to get into the more obscure intricacies. However, it is probably the first book to make primary directions accessible for the average astrologer not gifted with a strong mathematical ability. For that alone I know many astrologers will be very grateful to Martin for writing the book.

Tom, you've taken the words out of my head and have probably written them better then I would have. If Mr. Starkman and Mr. Scrutinizer want a book that emphasizes their techniques, then they should write one themselves. The same goes for any sort of gripe, e.g., translation issues, word choices, time period(s) of concepts or techniques, etc.

Ganston doesn't use the outer planets. One reason for this is to hide the chart data.

I have seen this reason expressed in another forum by another astrologer also,but I was able to get the date easily. The longitudes of Saturn and Jupiter are sufficient to filter out the year. The longitudes of Sun and Moon will give the month,date and hour/minute. If anyone needs an example post the longitudes of the lights and 5 planets and I will supply the date and time.

Quote:
Ganston doesn't use the outer planets. One reason for this is to hide the chart data.

I have seen this reason expressed in another forum by another astrologer also,but I was able to get the date easily. The longitudes of Saturn and Jupiter are sufficient to filter out the year. The longitudes of Sun and Moon will give the month,date and hour/minute. If anyone needs an example post the longitudes of the lights and 5 planets and I will supply the date and time.

My remark quoted above is really quite beside the most important point. Ganston was criticized for withholding data. It doesn't matter why he did that. If he was asked to withhold data, to do otherwise would be seriously unethical and probably downright dishonest. The criticism of his decision to withhold data is without merit. Out of respect for Martin, if I see the data posted here, I will delete it.

Tom

Hello,

I really wasn't going to say anything, but then I noticed that Tom had called me "self-centered", so I'll assume that it's an invitation to refute it indirectly...and have fun "toying" with the ideas that were put forth...and perhaps come to understand myself as to why someone might call me self-centered.

I was not surprised that I was somewhat misunderstood in my first comments, but I am surprised that I was re-misunderstood.

Okay, let's reduce this even further, because we've all already spent more time than what would be warranted by a review and commentary on a book.

Martin wrote a book about Primary Directions. I am sure that it is a fine book. Many seem to be enjoying it, so that justifies its existence somewhat. It's not all things to all people, so some might comment on that.

The book was not what I thought it would be and more to the point, not what I thought it COULD be. That disappointment fueled some of my commentary, but hey I am "human after all."

I am entitled to my opinion and until such time as someone gets overzealous on the "delete user" key, I will say what's on my mind. If it gets applause or tomatoes, that is fine...I honestly enjoy both and pretty much like them equally. (I am here to learn and discuss things; toeing the line? Not so much. Conforming when my personal experience indicates otherwise? Even less so.)

I will try to respond to some points from Tom's post, only because it summarizes what many were saying, so in the interest of not having to make the same "arguments" repetitively, I try to answer ALL by answering Tom.

Re: Self-centered

I won't address that directly, it's obviously only name-calling.

As for the other comments, those I will happily address.

Re: Starkman's main complaint seems to be that Ganston doesn't do things his way.

Anyone that uses Primary Directions surely QUICKLY sees that a REQUISITE of this technique is a precisely timed, rectified horoscope. This is fact. It has nothing to do with Starkman's CHOSEN technique, it's fundamental. If Starkman's chosen technique was paper, rock, scissors; PRIMARY DIRECTIONS STILL REQUIRE A SUPER-ACCURATE BIRTHTIME. Don't believe it?, then grab one of the astro programs that "does" Primary Directions and change the birthtime by 60 seconds. All the orb'd aspects suddenly went South! Change it by only 30 seconds...they STILL went South!

Re: "Starkman also disagrees with River Phoenix' chart. OK let's assume for the sake the argument that Starkman is correct. So what? The purpose of including that chart was to demonstrate a technique."

Garbage in, garbage out. If incorrect data leads to the "correct" answers, you STILL HAVE *NOT* PROVEN WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THE CORRECT DATA. Not one whit.

Re: "Why not write to Rumen Kolev and tell him to eliminate all other systems of primary directions from his program? That is the level of this criticism."

The criticism was not over what was included nearly as much as what was excluded. A more correct analogy along the lines of the one you gave would be "why not write to Rumen Kolev and tell him to INCLUDE Topocentric Primary Directions?" (It's too late, I believe they are already in there, though from the look of Kolev's programs, probably very clumsy to actually USE, but that's another criticism for another time.)

Re: "No one is required to accept everything or anything Ganston writes, but the idea that it is wrong because "he didn't do it my way" is plain silly."

Were that the reason, then yes, that would be plain silly.

As for the real reason, if you care to hear it, the book could have been so much more. In the places where there is a flaw in reasoning (NOT a matter of opinion) then they deserved and BEGGED to be commented upon by anyone caring to take the time to do so. On the elements that ARE a matter of opinion, they still can be commented upon by anyone who cares to. That's what a Forum IS...people commenting on what they have experienced, what they know and what they believe.

Your comments, Tom, about a REVIEW could be said to ANYONE reviewing anything or commenting on anything. If a reviewer reads Melville's Moby Dick and says, it is a good example of overly romanticized literature; you could just say, "oh, just because Melville didn't write it the way that YOU would have!" If I bought a 1976 Pacer and wrote that it was a butt-ugly monstrosity destined for the list of worst cars ever, you can just say "just because AMC didn't make the car the way YOU would have..." In other words, Tom, do we say globally that nothing can be reviewed or do we say that on this Forum, it better be Ganston positive? I ask because, from your reaction and its wording, one of the two seems to be the case.

Though Isaac Starkman presents his ideas with conviction, that doesn't in any way steal away from their legitimacy.

Primary Directions REQUIRE a very accurate, PROVEN birthtime. Saying so isn't self-centered self-promotion, it is "merely" fact.

Ignoring Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto IS a personal choice, I am behind you on that one. Then again, I will make the FACTUAL statement that "ignoring" and "ignorant" both have the same root and leave it at that.

Re: Examples

Isaac mentioned there weren't enough famous examples. Someone else posted saying the same thing, though I didn't notice quite as many people trying to jump down that user's throat. (He could always write his own Primary Directions book if Martin's didn't have enough examples, right?)

I find the situation a little unbelievable, I must say.

After rereading what was written, I will agree with you... it was a little harsh. But still accurate.


Peace


Central Scrutinizer

My remark quoted above is really quite beside the most important point. Ganston was criticized for withholding data. It doesn't matter why he did that. If he was asked to withhold data, to do otherwise would be seriously unethical and probably downright dishonest. The criticism of his decision to withhold data is without merit. Out of respect for Martin, if I see the data posted here, I will delete it.

My comments were only directed at the misconception that someone can hide data by excluding the longitudes of Extra-Saturnine planets. I was not asking someone to post Martin's data(I have no interest in the book or its reviews posted here). Select a random date and time in the past 100 years and one can deduce the date and time by using only the longitudes of the lights and 5 planets. All one needs is a paper(or online) ephemeris.

Hello Ju0Spica,

Good point.

I know that Janus has a "Chart Origin" function and can take the positions and search a given period for the time, date, latitude and longitude (assuming the ASC and MC are known, of course).

At first I thought that I would never need that function, but several times I wanted to have the chartfile in my program and had to get it from a horoscope wheel with only the positions shown.

Really, though... in this day and age... giving the positions with accuracy is the SAME as posting the data.

Have fun!

Peace


Central Scrutinizer

Hello Kirk,

The "clique"ishness is okay...it's kind of to be expected, but I don't understand quite the level of the reverse slam to the review and commentary.

There does seem to be a strong Us and Them element that I wished didn't exist. It's like that on most forums, usually as a result of everyone through time banding together to fight off or "suffer" the next incoming a$$, I would venture to guess.

Either way... I can sum up my sentiment that:

A) I was super excited about the book
B) Was ready to buy
C) Found out what was in it (both pro and con)
D) Saw that it was not for me for some specific reasons, NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AUTHOR's WRITING, but all having to do with the contents and the approach on several key issues
E) Wrote a commentary that, though logically argued, was emotionally driven
F) Got called self-centered
G) Said Neener neener
H) Here we are

So, Kirk...how you doing? How is your day?

Learn anything interesting astrologically that didn't come from a dead guy?

Peace

I am happy to see my recent work generating such interest, not to mention finding myself apparently part of a 'clique'! There is a first time for everything.

Almost everything I might have wished to say in explanation of why I wrote the book I did, and not the one others would have wished me to write, has already been said by others, so I will limit myself to clarifying two points:

1. Why so few 'celebrity' charts? Because the data are very often questionable. I could of course offer rectification suggestions, but my intention was never to write a book on rectification.

2. Why so many charts with 'data withheld'? To offer a measure of privacy to the people who kindly allowed me to use their charts. The charts are not there to prove some point or other, or to demonstrate the Only True System; they are simply illustrations of the (traditional) methods of primary directions. There is therefore no need to check their validity. I expect readers to test the methods discussed against charts of their own; I know I would have.

To my mind, not much of value happened in primary directions between appr. 1940 and 1990 (after which many important earlier texts have been translated and made public). Others may disagree, and are quite at liberty to write their own books saying so. But the modern so-called topocentric variant of the Placidus method can hardly be called, by any stretch of the imagination, an astrological Old Master technique. As Isaac, who was kind enough to send me a demo copy of his software, knows, the reason that software was never reviewed was precisely that it could not be used for traditional primary directions -- which are what my book is about.

I really wasn't going to say anything, but then I noticed that Tom had called me "self-centered",

I didn't say you were self-centerd, I said the arguments were and mostly I was referring to Issac's arguments. I only skimmed yours because you said you were holding off on reading the book. Not much value in reading a review of a book that the reviwer hadn't read.

The self centered comment refers to the various places where the criticisms were based on the fact that Ganston didn't do things they way others wanted him to do it. That is the definition of self-centered.

Tom