Skyscript Astrology Forum

So if my understanding is correct, the Bound Lord of the Ascendant will be the first time lord, then when the ASC is directed to the next bound (in zodiacal order, of course), that planet whose bound it is will become the next time lord. The directing process is repeated ad infinitum until the native's death.

When we do Primary Directions using the Aspects and Conjunction of the planets instead, the time period for a chronocratership is measured by the number of degrees that has passed through the MC instead of the number of degrees that has passed through the ASC.

So I am wondering whether is this the same when we are directing through the bounds?


It would make sense, because the bounds are divided between planets in whole degrees, but the primary directions using the planetary aspects does not give time periods in whole numbers.

hi larxene,

as i understand it there can be a few bound lords if there is a partial aspect to the degree from a planet in the chart. that is what i recall from the ben dyke books.. thus aspects to planets are a consideration for sharing the responsibilities between more then 1 planet as bound lord.

Larxene wrote:So if my understanding is correct, the Bound Lord of the Ascendant will be the first time lord, then when the ASC is directed to the next bound (in zodiacal order, of course), that planet whose bound it is will become the next time lord. The directing process is repeated ad infinitum until the native's death.

Yes, but the ruler of the bounds/terms (the divisor) is always mixed with any planets occupying or aspecting those terms (the promissors). So it's not either/or. Whether the divisor or promissor is more important is a matter of debate...

Also, very importantly, all significators (the Asc, MC, Sun, Moon, etc) can be directed through the terms and to the aspects of the planets. Ptolemy and most of the medievals (and basically everyone from the Renaissance onwards) used different types of ascensions for these significators: oblique ascension for the Asc, right ascension for the MC, and mixed ascensions for any point not on the angles. There are very good astronomical reasons for this, but no room to explain it in detail here (it takes up several lessons of my online course...).

When we do Primary Directions using the Aspects and Conjunction of the planets instead, the time period for a chronocratership is measured by the number of degrees that has passed through the MC instead of the number of degrees that has passed through the ASC.

No, that's not really it. Everyone (Ptolemaic or not) directs the Asc by oblique ascensions (or by rising times, which are an approximation of OA), but other points are directed by other methods, as I just mentioned. It's to do with the apparent motion of the celestial sphere: all points cross the meridian at right angles, but the horizon obliquely.

james_m wrote:hi larxene,

as i understand it there can be a few bound lords if there is a partial aspect to the degree from a planet in the chart. that is what i recall from the ben dyke books.. thus aspects to planets are a consideration for sharing the responsibilities between more then 1 planet as bound lord.

No, I don't think so. I think you mean that there can be more than one time lord, not bound lord. For any degree, there is only one bound lord.

Martin Gansten wrote:Yes, but the ruler of the bounds/terms (the divisor) is always mixed with any planets occupying or aspecting those terms (the promissors). So it's not either/or. Whether the divisor or promissor is more important is a matter of debate...

My understanding is that one will be the primary time lord, while the other will be the secondary time lord, depending on which authorities one follows.

I understand this, I just want to focus on the primary time lord, regardless of which version we are using.

Martin Gansten wrote:Also, very importantly, all significators (the Asc, MC, Sun, Moon, etc) can be directed through the terms and to the aspects of the planets. Ptolemy and most of the medievals (and basically everyone from the Renaissance onwards) used different types of ascensions for these significators: oblique ascension for the Asc, right ascension for the MC, and mixed ascensions for any point not on the angles.

There. That's what I needed to know. I'll work on the mechanics later. Just to clarify, what is "mixed" ascension"?

Martin Gansten wrote:No, that's not really it. Everyone (Ptolemaic or not) directs the Asc by oblique ascensions (or by rising times, which are an approximation of OA), but other points are directed by other methods, as I just mentioned. It's to do with the apparent motion of the celestial sphere: all points cross the meridian at right angles, but the horizon obliquely.

I see! Now I understand. The "number of degrees that passes through the MC" is the rising time, and rising times are an approximation of oblique ascension.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe we can find the difference between right ascension and oblique ascension in degrees by subtracting the peak altitude of a star or point from the zenith of the local horizon?

If my hunch is correct, this figures into the calculation of the time period, correct?



Basically, I mixed up something. How the time is measured (oblique ascension, right ascension, etc) depends NOT on the divisor or promissor, but rather it depends on the significator!

The reason is that we are directing the significator, not the divisor or promissor.



I'm thinking of buying your book on Primary Directions, Martin...just stuck deciding between that or other books.

Larxene wrote:My understanding is that one will be the primary time lord, while the other will be the secondary time lord, depending on which authorities one follows.

Well, some of them do say explicitly that the two are equal.

I understand this, I just want to focus on the primary time lord, regardless of which version we are using.

I sympathize with your wish to keep it simple, though personally I think they need to be combined.

There. That's what I needed to know. I'll work on the mechanics later. Just to clarify, what is "mixed" ascension"?

As the name suggests, it's a sort of sliding scale between right and oblique ascension. If you were born exactly at sunrise, you will direct your Sun by OA because it is on the horizon; if you were born exactly at noon, it is on the meridian and you will direct it by RA. But if you were born at any time between those two positions, you need to work out an intermediate way of directing. The idea is to bring the promissor (or the beginning degree of the terms) with the primary motion into the same proportional relation to both the horizon and the meridian as the significator (here, the Sun) had at birth.

I see! Now I understand. The "number of degrees that passes through the MC" is the rising time, and rising times are an approximation of oblique ascension.

More or less. Ascensions/rising times are calculated in degrees along the celestial equator, not along the ecliptic like planetary longitudes. (This is because the equator marks the direction of the apparent rotation of the celestial sphere, that is, the rotation of the earth around its axis.) The equatorial degrees will cross the meridian (MC) at exactly the same speed as the horizon, so measuring at the meridian is just a convention.

The number of equatorial degrees rising together with a zodiacal sign is its rising time, and this is the same as its extension in OA for that location. It only becomes an approximation when we start assuming that the rising time can be evenly divided by 30 to get the rising times for each degree of the sign (because the beginning and the end of a sign will actually rise at different speeds).

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe we can find the difference between right ascension and oblique ascension in degrees by subtracting the peak altitude of a star or point from the zenith of the local horizon?

Er... Pass. Too difficult for me to visualize on a Monday morning! The usual way of finding this difference (the ascensional difference, AD) is based on the declination of the star/point and the geographical latitude (or 'pole height') of the place. The pole height, of course, refers to the local zenith.

If my hunch is correct, this figures into the calculation of the time period, correct?

The AD gives the difference between directing in right and oblique ascensions, yes. For mixed ascensions, as I said, it has to be adjusted along a sliding scale.

Basically, I mixed up something. How the time is measured (oblique ascension, right ascension, etc) depends NOT on the divisor or promissor, but rather it depends on the significator!

Let's rather say it depends on the point that is kept astronomically fixed (while the other point moves with the primary motion). In a direct direction, the significator (in the traditional sense of the word) will be fixed point; but in a converse direction, it is the promissor that is kept fixed. But directions through the terms are always done in direct motion.

Martin Gansten wrote:Well, some of them do say explicitly that the two are equal.

Oh, that's new to me. Alright.

Martin Gansten wrote: As the name suggests, it's a sort of sliding scale between right and oblique ascension. If you were born exactly at sunrise, you will direct your Sun by OA because it is on the horizon; if you were born exactly at noon, it is on the meridian and you will direct it by RA. But if you were born at any time between those two positions, you need to work out an intermediate way of directing. The idea is to bring the promissor (or the beginning degree of the terms) with the primary motion into the same proportional relation to both the horizon and the meridian as the significator (here, the Sun) had at birth.



Er... Pass. Too difficult for me to visualize on a Monday morning! The usual way of finding this difference (the ascensional difference, AD) is based on the declination of the star/point and the geographical latitude (or 'pole height') of the place. The pole height, of course, refers to the local zenith.



The AD gives the difference between directing in right and oblique ascensions, yes. For mixed ascensions, as I said, it has to be adjusted along a sliding scale.



Let's rather say it depends on the point that is kept astronomically fixed (while the other point moves with the primary motion). In a direct direction, the significator (in the traditional sense of the word) will be fixed point; but in a converse direction, it is the promissor that is kept fixed. But directions through the terms are always done in direct motion.

*pukes out blood* I think it's too complicated for me right now. Maybe I'll just give up on understanding the mechanics

Yeah I was thinking of direct direction; I didn't understand the point of converse direction.

Larxene wrote: *pukes out blood* I think it's too complicated for me right now. Maybe I'll just give up on understanding the mechanics

Yeah I was thinking of direct direction; I didn't understand the point of converse direction.

I have a convention in Delphic Oracle with the circumambulation listings (same as directing through the bounds by oblique ascension) of Dorotheus/Ptolemy where the bound lord or the aspect ray is indented to show which is primary and it can be switched either way. There are actually two sections in the program because oblique ascension is not astronomically correct motion for anything that is not on the ascendant, but because Valens and others used oblique ascensions for other bodies as well I included the older but "objectionable to Ptolemy" methods. The primary directions section though does directions through the bounds using the 3 types mentioned above (typically called Placidian semi-arc, in addition to the more modern circle of position method, Placidus under the pole and Polich-Page topocentric methods. These variations all have to do with what point on the celestial sphere is being directed to another point on the celestial sphere and what frames of reference you are using to measure the distance using spherical trigonometry. One of the principle problems with directing points not on the ascendant or midheaven is that these points almost never come into direct contact with each other but pass either above or below the other object. Therefore the reference frame becomes critical in measuring these arcs. There can be no argument about when some planet crosses the ascendant or midheaven because these are planes which all objects must pass through, but points can have any number of planes defined perpendicularly to them.

It depends upon who you talk to what the definition of a converse direction is. Martin uses the more traditional definition (which doesn't involve direction of motion at all because the motion is always from east to west above the horizon). Traditionally a converse direction is when a significator is moved toward a promissor. Significators are supposed to remain "fixed" so when you move them, it's converse. Those working with Morinus will tend to think of converse directions as being "against the diurnal rotation".

Larxene wrote:*pukes out blood* I think it's too complicated for me right now. Maybe I'll just give up on understanding the mechanics

The mechanics as such are actually fairly easy to understand, given some visual aid (required especially if your 3D visualization skills are poor, like mine) -- I do appreciate that my unillustrated attempt at a summary was a little compact! A good old-fashioned armillary sphere is a great tool, and very decorative, too. Learning to do the maths by hand, even using a calculator, takes more time, but it's definitely doable.

Larxene wrote:

*pukes out blood* I think it's too complicated for me right now. Maybe I'll just give up on understanding the mechanics

Yeah I was thinking of direct direction; I didn't understand the point of converse direction.

What happened to the Coursera module ???

Try Tony louis' book on Kindle- it has the Vitruvian man and Youtube in one book , and a lot links to other sites for explanation.

PD

Larxene wrote:

james_m wrote:hi larxene,

as i understand it there can be a few bound lords if there is a partial aspect to the degree from a planet in the chart. that is what i recall from the ben dyke books.. thus aspects to planets are a consideration for sharing the responsibilities between more then 1 planet as bound lord.

No, I don't think so. I think you mean that there can be more than one time lord, not bound lord. For any degree, there is only one bound lord.

yes, you'e correct here. i had forgotten how all this works in the books i have read, but it was in reference to the time lords going thru the bounds.. i don't use the bounds as i note the 3 different choices for them - ptolemy, chaldean and egyptian help create a cloud around the use of them.. i don't use time lords either.

zoidsoft wrote:One of the principle problems with directing points not on the ascendant or midheaven is that these points almost never come into direct contact with each other but pass either above or below the other object. Therefore the reference frame becomes critical in measuring these arcs. There can be no argument about when some planet crosses the ascendant or midheaven because these are planes which all objects must pass through, but points can have any number of planes defined perpendicularly to them.

Somehow, it's easier to understand when you put it in mathematical terms.

But actually, I do understand that. It's something like this I think:
Forgive the ugly illustration (blame Microsoft Paint for that). I didn't draw the red planes in full because it would get in the way.

Martin Gansten wrote: The mechanics as such are actually fairly easy to understand, given some visual aid (required especially if your 3D visualization skills are poor, like mine) -- I do appreciate that my unillustrated attempt at a summary was a little compact! A good old-fashioned armillary sphere is a great tool, and very decorative, too. Learning to do the maths by hand, even using a calculator, takes more time, but it's definitely doable.

The dragon is in the details

Oblique ascension, right ascension...so far so good. When we add mixed ascension to the fray, and have to scale things based on the declination of the planets...direct, converse...that gets a little overwhelming.

My Saturnine mind will reject learning everything at once. I would restrict the scope by breaking things down into simpler components. For example, I might learn direct direction and oblique ascension first, because the first thing I want to direct is the Ascendant. I guess this will be how I go about it.

Too bad Morinus doesn't have directing through the bounds.

pankajdubey wrote:What happened to the Coursera module ???

Try Tony louis' book on Kindle- it has the Vitruvian man and Youtube in one book , and a lot links to other sites for explanation.

PD

The first week on Positional Astronomy did not mention Oblique ascension, as far as I can recall. I had to google the term and read about it to understand the concept at first.

Thanks for your suggestion, pankaj.

Larxene wrote:Too bad Morinus doesn't have directing through the bounds.

The traditional version of Morinus does directing through the bounds.

In your graphic above if the red lines represent the motion of the stars in the sky by diurnal rotation, they would not cross but be parallel to each other. In the proportional semi-arc method, in order for a promisor to reach a significator, one has to find the significators diurnal semi arc and nocturnal semi arc and find what proportion of that arc matches the significators arc (in its own arc). Assuming mid northern latitudes here, if the significator is 2/3rds of the way to the MC at roughly the cusp of the 11th house and the promisor happens to be on the ascendant, then one has to find the significators diurnal semi arc and calculate what would be 2/3rds of that arc and then do the same with the promissor in its own arc and when it reaches 2/3rds of it's own arc the direction is complete. That would be the Ptolemaic method. If the latitude of the significator is relatively low then it will be low in the sky and probably have a small DSA and relatively large NSA: for instance the DSA might be about 60 degrees and therefore the NSA will be 120 degrees but if the promissor passes above the significator then the DSA value will be larger and its NSA will be smaller. 2/3 of 60 would be 40, but if the value of the DSA for the promissor is about 90, then 2/3 is 60 in its own arc. Once we have the "arc of direction, then it is a matter of applying a time key to represent the passage of degrees. It's more complicated than I state here because one needs to find the latitude of birth, equinoctial distance of the sig and pro, etc before one can find DSA's and NSA's to derive the proportional point...

In the circle of position method one finds the "artificial horizon" for the significator or promissor and finds the oblique ascension...

In order to get converse directions in Morinus you have to swap significator and promissor because Morinus uses the modern definition of converse. I make a distinction in Delphic Oracle and call these modern converse directions "neo-converse" as per Martin's convention and no swapping is necessary (I'm a graduate of Martin Gansten's Primary Directions course and based the PD's in Delphic Oracle on this).