Skyscript Astrology Forum

https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2025/07 ... irections/

some here might be interested in reading it and not know about it either..

james_m wrote: Tue Jul 22, 2025 10:05 pm https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2025/07 ... irections/

some here might be interested in reading it and not know about it either..

Hi James,

Thanks for the link. It’s certainly a fascinating topic—the question of lunar parallax correction, which continues to stir debate. That said, your link also brings back into focus a broader concern I’ve noticed in Anthony Louis’s blog that I would like your opinion on.

While I’ve followed Louis’s work for some time and appreciate his commitment to keeping technical astrology in public discussion, a recurring pattern has become difficult to ignore: namely, his selective use of case studies originally developed by other astrologers, particularly Martin Gansten. This practice is not inherently problematic—astrological discourse thrives on engagement with prior work—but there are a couple of instances in which Louis appropriates these examples, raising methodological and ethical concerns.

To be clear, the issue isn’t that Louis draws on other astrologers’ case studies—comparative analysis is a valid and even necessary part of methodological inquiry. The concern is that he repeatedly repurposes these studies in ways that subordinate the original context to his own interpretive agenda.

In Louis' blog post you point to on the topocentric Moon, for example, he reworks a case study by Martin Gansten to showcase a different zodiac, an alternative timing key, and a modern reinterpretation of classical converse directions. These are not minor technical variations—they represent fundamental departures that alter timing by years and transform house lordships and functional rulerships, thereby reshaping the entire symbolic logic of the chart. Louis also uses one of Gansten's private cases in The Importance of the Lord of the Orb from May 13th, 2025, of a native with congenital lung disease, and also Embolismic Lunation Returns—an example of a hellish year from June 21st, 2021. Though to be fair, in the blog about Embolismic Lunation Returns, Louis only recasts the chart to tropical with Placidus houses; Gansten does not use this technique, yet there are plenty of free and available charts of documented births available on ADB. I was able to pull up 274 individual charts on ADB with AA or A data from 1900 to 2000 with asthma, emphysema, and pneumonia; this was only 3 out of 27 disease search selections and took under a minute. There is no particular need to use another astrologer's private charts in this way.

Interestingly, in this current blog on the topocentric Moon, Louis adheres to the same significators and promissors that Gansten used—an unusual move for him, as he often selects a broader set of PD significators. This selective inconsistency feels less like a sincere comparative analysis and more like strategic positioning: an attempt to minimize surface differences while using the same scaffolding to imply superior results. It borders on rhetorical one-upmanship rather than fair methodological exploration.

While Louis does cite his sources, his analysis routinely bypasses the underlying rationale of the original methods. The borrowed case study becomes less a ground for honest comparison than a springboard for promoting his own approach. If his goal were truly to justify the use of lunar parallax, it would have been more appropriate to cite Gansten or Morin directly and present an original case or ADB chart suited to his framework. The fact that he did not—and that this pattern recurs throughout his blog—invites deeper questions about motive.

Some might argue that applying different techniques to familiar cases is a legitimate form of exploration—testing results on known examples can be instructive. But without a genuine dialogue with the source author’s rationale, the exercise becomes misleading. It creates the impression that the new method “performs better” on someone else’s terms, when in fact the terms themselves have been significantly altered.

This approach falls short of what I would consider genuine astrological engagement; it’s a rhetorical maneuver that gives the impression of opportunism to some readers, even if unintended. Using another astrologer’s case study as a point of departure can certainly be defensible, but to do so repeatedly and primarily as a means of affirming one’s own methods risks turning serious research into a platform for self-promotion. It draws heavily on the credibility of others’ work, which can raise questions about attribution.

In short, Louis’s repeated use of Gansten’s examples—however well-intentioned—risks distorting the inquiry they were designed to support. It can mislead readers unfamiliar with the source material into assuming methodological equivalence where none exists. And because these examples are not neutral—they are the result of specific technical and philosophical commitments—recasting them under a different system without grappling with those foundations undermines their value.

Astrological progress depends not only on innovation but also on transparency and methodological accountability. Continually appropriating another astrologer’s case studies to validate a divergent framework erodes both trust and intellectual rigor. This is not merely a matter of proper citation; it’s a matter of astrological integrity.

Interesting article by Anthony Louis.

I have seen in charts where the Topocentric Moon (in mundo) in midpoints is better describing the person's life than the Moon (in zodiaco).

"In Tetrabiblos, Book 1,24 Ptolemy says that for conjunctions we need to consider the latitudes.
Domitude refers to the ecliptic distance of a celestial body above or below the horizon in the local (horizontal) coordinate system, measured along the ecliptic, not along the meridian or altitude. This concept is often used in primary directions, classical chart rectification, and certain Ptolemaic techniques."
https://www.astroariana.com/Theme-de-domitude-et.html for the astronomy of in mundo aspects

Some additional reflections about the Topocentric Moon.

On the website of Jean-Christophe Vitu, he did a little statistical analysis to find out to what extent planetary house systems were incorrect.
"He compiled 10,000 charts (births in Paris) randomly distributed by date and time between 1800 and 2000.
And he compared the house obtained with a house system that does not take latitude into account with the house obtained with one that does. Here is the interesting result of this research:
- a quarter of Pluto's house positions are wrong! Which is not surprising given the planet's significant latitude.
- more surprisingly, almost 8% of the Moon's house positions are wrong too!
Note: Thus, the need to make a correction with the Topocentric Moon, with latitude.
- we see from this table that if the latitude peaks of Venus and Mercury are significant, their relative rarity makes the error statistically less significant."

He concludes that "two definitions are possible: the first, implicit in current astrological practice, is the following: a planet is said to be angular when its longitude is close to one of the four key points of the chart (ascendant, descendant, midheaven and bottom of the sky). In this case, the assessment is made simply by looking at the chart.
What we call in Zodiaco.
...
We must therefore introduce another definition: a planet will be said to be angular if it is close to its rising, setting, culmination or passage across the bottom of the sky. The domitude of the planet will then be very suitable for measuring the strength of this angularity. The greater or lesser proximity of the values ​​0 (AS), 90 (FC), 180 (DS) and 270 (MC) will measure the angularity of the planet."
What we call In Mundo

Jean-Christophe Vitu
http://mapage.noos.fr/astrolabe/latitude.htm

Therefore, we should consider a Topocentric Pluto in Directions.
---------

"Originally, the theme of "domitude" was proposed by Don Neroman. It was later taken up by Max Duval in 'La domification et les transits' (Editions Traditionnelles), 1984). There are different types of domitudes (Placidus, Regiomontanus, or Campanus). I prefer the Placidus domification, used here, because it best reflects the position of the planets on the diurnal or nocturnal arc, according to an equidistant distribution over time."
http://www.fallonastro.com/astrology/ppp-domitudes.html


"The planetary positions will thus be measured in a nativity (*kata ten genesin*), *in mundo*, in houses, by their right ascension and declination (equatorial coordinates). The apparent movement of the celestial sphere will determine, in terms of houses, the position of the planets at the moment of birth, their *in mundo* aspects, and then, as time unfolds, their primary directions and their profections."
Les Deux Mouvements, Danièle Jay, L'Echo d'Hermès, no.26


"With regard to *in mundo* aspects: the orbs used are identical regardless of the type of configuration (conjunction, opposition, square, trine, sextile) and regardless of the factors involved. Using the Placidus semi-arcs, 2 hours from the Equator equals 1 Placidus House clockwise.
Thus,
an orb of 0.467 hours is allowed for an aspect between the two luminaries.
0.4 hours for an aspect between a planet and a luminary.
0.334 hours for an aspect between two planets, between a planet and a lot, or between a luminary and a lot.
0.067 hours for an aspect between a star and a planet, or between a star and an angle.

Note: In Planetdance, there is a module Domitude in >Horoscope >Various >Domitude

"The movements that take place *in zodiaco* create “virtual” or “potential” situations, which would never come into actuality, into events, without the *in mundo* movement of the celestial sphere, which determines their “rising,” their “culmination,” etc. (Online course by G. Bezza and M. Fumagalli). It is the great merit of these two researchers to have brought to light the interconnection of these two movements, their necessity, and their meaning."


"It is easy to understand that *in mundo* aspects are more specific to each native, more personalized, and therefore much more significant than zodiacal aspects, which remain active for several days (depending on planetary motion) and apply to a large number of people.
We must now address the relationship between *in mundo* aspects and zodiacal aspects, which should of course not be ignored. Three scenarios can arise:

1) An *in mundo* aspect may be present without a corresponding zodiacal aspect, as in the case here with Mercury and the Moon, which are connected only *in mundo*.

2) An *in mundo* aspect may be accompanied by a zodiacal aspect of the same nature and involving the same two planets — as, for example, here between Mars and Venus, Mars and Mercury, Saturn and the Sun — connected both in the zodiac and *in mundo* by the same type of aspect. It is easy to see that this repetition greatly increases their power and effectiveness.

3) An *in mundo* aspect may be accompanied by a zodiacal aspect of a different nature involving the same planets. There is no such example in Marcel Pagnol’s chart (French author). Let us imagine, for example, a Venus/Saturn aspect: a square *in mundo* and a trine in the zodiac (or vice versa). What should we make of it? Whereas the zodiacal aspect, taken from the celestial sphere, would primarily signify the quality of the planets — in this case, the nature of the emotional or romantic sentiment — the *in mundo* aspect, taken from the local sphere, in houses, would pertain more to the concrete events involving the two planets — here, the impossibility or difficulty of fully experiencing that sentiment in real life. In any case, the *in mundo* aspect, being more individualized, always takes precedence."

Les aspects dans le monde, Danièle Jay, L'Echo d'Hermès, no.15


Ouranos

P.S. I will try in another post to post the charts of twins taken on Astrodatabank and show the differences in Angularities using Domitudes.

aj

you raise legitimate concerns and i have no idea what anthony louis's motives are here... and if one was to go to ask on his blog, they wouldn't be certain of the comments getting past his moderation process either, so without his direct response - hard to know!!

the whole idea of directing thru the bounds is shattered with the altered zodiacs, and as i understand it this is a fundamental tenet of traditional astrology - directing thru the bounds... as for the use of parallax moon in PD's, i can't vouch for it. i have a chart where the moon is on the horizon and changes by close to 1 degree with the use of parallax... in my search for greater understanding on the value of using primary directions, i continue to come up short, although i do admire kenneth bowsers recent examples he's given... until more astrologers actually demonstrate their value with or without the parallax adjustments, it is hard to take personal examples from a book where we know nothing about the individual charts being discussed.. i think working with well known individuals charts is a much better way to go here, but these would be my own priorities if i was publishing a book on the topic...

so, yes - hard to know where anthony is coming from in all of this.. but regardless - switching zodiacs, house systems and etc etc leaving out the differences gotten from the use of bounds/terms, is going to end with very different astrological conclusions as i see it... thanks for your post aj!

ouranos

thanks for sharing all that! i look forward to the examples of the twins you provide when you make the post... as for pluto - yes, i am sure this is true, but then we go right back to the various positions on house systems with advocates for the various ones in use today... those french astrologers like to make interesting studies... it seems their is a real tradition of astrology that is embraced in france or with the french going back to jb morin who was a believer in the use of parallax moon, up to the french couple - francois and michel gauguelin.. and not to forget andre barbault!

Presented here are the natal charts of twins born in Belgium, with a 20-minute interval between their births, one labeled retarded, the other one normal. Source: Astrodatabank, entries No. 11259 and 11260.
Not sure exactly what is meant by retarded here. Let's assume that it shows difficulties in development. At first glance, both charts show identical planets house positions. However, upon closer inspection—especially when the charts are cast in domitude— we notice a key difference: in the case of the retarded twin (according to the topocentric diurnal motion), Saturn is positioned exactly on the cusp of the 7th house in Domitude, whereas it has not yet appeared on the western horizon in the chart of the normal twin.



Upon closer examination, Saturn falling into the 7th house becomes problematic. In Uranian astrology and cosmobiology, the Midheaven (MC) represents the 'Self' or the 'I'.
In the case of the retarded twin, the MC falls at the midpoints MO/SA (mentally depressed, withdrawn, reserved), SA/PO (mental isolation or differentiation), and MA/NE (a state of rejection, sorrow due to illness).
The 7th House Saturn is found twice in the midpoints stressing the influence of Saturn. In the case of the normal twin, the MC falls at the midpoints JU/PL (fortunate personal development, experiencing positive transformations) and ME/PO (elevated or inspired thinking). I have observed the Mercury/Poseidon midpoint frequently appearing in the charts of individuals who receive a high-quality education, often in prestigious colleges or universities.

In conclusion, a topocentric perspective combined with domitude can reveal significant differences. A chart can be viewed from different angles, and I’m certain that other methods can lead to similar conclusions.

Addendum:

If you have a chance to watch Martin Gansten on YouTube on Converse Directions
Presentation by Luis Ribeiro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQPZAMpp-3A

Ouranos

james_m wrote: Wed Jul 23, 2025 4:59 pm aj
you raise legitimate concerns and i have no idea what anthony louis's motives are here... and if one was to go to ask on his blog, they wouldn't be certain of the comments getting past his moderation process either, so without his direct response - hard to know!!

Hi James: You’ve touched on all the right points. Without a clear, public response from Anthony Louis—and given the opacity of his moderation—we’re left speculating, but within the context of public discourse, my critique is that it’s more than a petty quibble. It speaks to the heart of how we innovate responsibly.

the whole idea of directing thru the bounds is shattered with the altered zodiacs, and as i understand it this is a fundamental tenet of traditional astrology - directing thru the bounds... as for the use of parallax moon in PD's, i can't vouch for it. i have a chart where the moon is on the horizon and changes by close to 1 degree with the use of parallax... in my search for greater understanding on the value of using primary directions, i continue to come up short.

You’re absolutely correct that directing through the bounds is a cornerstone of traditional primary directions—and that switching zodiacs wholesale essentially eviscerates that practice. If you change the zodiacal frame, the bounds (terms) shift entirely, so any sense of “through the bounds” loses its original meaning. That alone calls into question any conclusions drawn from those altered charts.

On the parallax-Moon question, your example of the Moon near the horizon shifting nearly a full degree under a topocentric correction shows the potential impact, yet it’s hard to know whether that shift improves predictive accuracy. But even before weighing the merits of lunar parallax, you must nail down all other PD variables—timing key, zodiacal versus mundane framework, converse-direction method, etc.—since these factors fundamentally determine predictive accuracy. Otherwise, any apparent “gain” from using the topocentric Moon may simply reflect method mixing. Only a rigorously controlled, paired-comparison study—replicated across different methodological baselines—can definitively show whether topocentric positioning truly improves predictive precision beyond chance.

i do admire kenneth bowsers recent examples he's given... until more astrologers actually demonstrate their value with or without the parallax adjustments, it is hard to take personal examples from a book where we know nothing about the individual charts being discussed.. i think working with well known individuals charts is a much better way to go here, but these would be my own priorities if i was publishing a book on the topic...

Yes, Kenneth Bowser's use of PDs on the US Hazelrigg chart is encouraging, but I agree, we need more practitioners stepping forward with transparent casework—ideally focused on public figures whose event dates are beyond dispute to avoid what might be called "retrospective storytelling." As a side note, Kenneth uses mundane primary directions with the key of Ptolemy; it was unclear what he used for converse directions, but after contacting him directly, he uses modern converse.

Thanks again for your thoughtful analysis.

ouranos

i am not sure what the difference, but i know there is a diffeerence between parallax moon and domitude.. but with regard to the 2 charts from adb that you are using as a reference, i am not sure either are necessary to draw conclusions on the charts... but, my first conclusion would be the fact they are rated A based off memory makes any use of midpoints very tentative at best! here are links to the charts you are using to highlight your emphasis on domitude here..

https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Re ... No.1_11259
https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Re ... No.2_11260

i would be inclined to see the close proximity to the angles of planets to the chart as having just as much bearing.. in the case of the child that had mental health issues - saturn as ruler of the 12th so close to the angle, being a possible factor, verses a closer proximity of venus to one of the angles in the other, being a more helpful influence... but without a confirmation of the times of the birth, it is mostly speculation on everyone's part... thanks for sharing!

aj

i suppose innovating responsibly could mean a number of different things to different people, but i do find it odd that anthony is unable to find his own examples, as opposed to using martins, so again - speculation is all we have here... maybe anthony is hoping to show how his use of tropical zodiac and etc. etc. are superior or equally valid ways of reading martins examples?? hard to know what he is thinking!!

i think astrologers who are using primary directions are going to reach very different conclusions based on any emphasis of the terms/bounds, by switching zodiacs... of course using a different primary key will give different results too.. the whole idea of any use of parallax moon seems mute in the greater hierarchy of primary directions to give more then a rough guideline time-wise... there are too many options to primary directions as i see it to allow for anything more then a general view that could somehow be incorporated to use as a predictive tool.. i don't think it is a stretch to suggest this is one of the reasons primary directions have fallen into dis use... the complication in doing them would be another obvious reason, but now with the availability of astro software more individuals including yours truly, are interested in exploring there relevance..

i agree with your conclusions.... maybe there is a future french couple that will sail into the uncharted waters with all the options to primary directions and come to a definitive conclusion on the value and importance of using parallax in the calculations.. until such time it is all speculative and can be offset by all the different options that haven't been ruled out here..