Primary Directions for mathmatically challenged ?

1
Hi Everyone
I am still working on Zoller's DMA course and am really stuck on the lesson on Primary Directions-I never did more than basic arithmetic in school.To me Zoller can make the simplest thing appear difficult- Am I a lost cause as far as Primary Directions if I am so mathematically challenged ? I asked help from New Library and they just told me to get the Tools and Technique 2 [Which I did]
I have spent countless hours trying to get my head around this.I am able to follow much of what he gives as examples but am not able to calculate my own because I just don't get the basics. So, is there any one book on Primary Directions [for dummies] which would help me learn this wonderful predictive tool? I used to calculate all my charts by hand so I am able to do basic stuff. I would appreciate any help/feedback, Thanks
azcelt :-?

Re: Primary Directions for mathmatically challenged ?

2
With apologies for the blatant self-promotion, there will be such a book on the market some time this summer/autumn: Primary Directions: Astrology's Old Master Technique, by yours truly, published by The Wessex Astrologer. Until then, there isn't really much I can recommend, except perhaps Rumen Kolev's booklets. These aren't exactly easy going, and the English is atrocious at times, but they are a good deal better than Makransky or Sepharial (who is talking through his hat, even from beyond the grave). And you are right: Zoller, though a great hero in his way, does have a wonderful knack for complicating things. Well-structured is not the word that leaps to mind.

3
Use Window's calculator. I don't know trigonometry at all and I was able to do it.

Follow his formulas exactly. Use his examples first and recreate them. By default, I did everything in decimals rather that degrees. It's easier that way. When I was done, I converted the results back to degrees, and thus dates. Just so you know, he makes an error on one of his examples where he converts a degree to a date. The rest of the math seems correct though.

Midheaven Directions:

Midheaven directions are just RA coordinate to RA coordinate. I also calculated every possible aspect for each direction. For instance, the RA of Mercury is X. I added 180 for an opposition, 60 for a sextile, and so on. That way, you can work them all out at once.

Oblique Ascension

In his example, start with:

The RA of the MC + 90. Simply add 90 to the MC's RA.

Sin AD is found by taking the latitude of the birthplace, then hit TAN on the calculator. Write that down. Then enter the declination. Hit TAN. Write that number down. Take those two numbers and multiply them together. That's the "Sin AD=" portion in the example.

Then, the part where he has AD=Sin1(0.2998521). He gets that number by taking the result you got for the Sin AD. Enter that number in your Windows calculator, hit the "INV" square checkbox thingy near the top of the calculator, and then hit the "SIN" key. You'll find your number will be the same as his - 17.44872.

Now do this a zillion time for each of the planets' aspects. Again just add the appropriate number of degrees to the planet you're directing's RA. I do them all, since you can just get it all done.

Once you do this, the rest will make more sense. The last section on non-angular directions essentially follows the oblique ascension-style of math. So, once you know which calculator buttons to hit, you'll be good.

It's tedious though. I'm working on a spreadsheet to do this for me.

Hope that helps. I was stuck until I realized the "INV" button made all the difference.

4
Hi Martin and Mithra
I will be sure to check out your book, Martin. Mithra, thankyou soooo much for taking the time to help me out - I know that I will be able to do this now.The whole sin and tan thing really freaked me out but you have explained things so well for me.
Now that I have the windows calculator figured out I am ready and will tackle this tomorrow
Many many thanks
Azcelt

5
I offer this as a suggestion with the caveat that I have not actually tried it. Lilly discusses the use of and calculations of primary directions. The relevant material begins on page 651 with tables on page 711, 712, 713. I've been told that although time consuming, these tables are easy to use and the calculations easy to understand. If that proves to be untrue, well you tried.

Tom

6
Thanks Tom I need to get lilly's book three.
Thanks to Mithra I am "getting" this but what do you do when
OA Asc 091 degrees 57' 44"
OA Sun 196 degrees 39' 30" subtract to get the arc of direction.
Do I add 360 degrees to that 091? or just subtract 091 from 196 ? Several calculations I have tried on other charts come out that way[where I would be subtracting the big from small number] Most of the charts I am using are not coming out nice and pretty like Robert Zollers example.
I just love the calculator-wow. I have done all his examples and they work
Azcelt

7
You're going to get a lot of directions that are too big to experience in your lifetime. It just is what it is. You'll have a lot that are within possibility though. I have a lot that are more than 100 degrees. I just don't worry about those unless I live that long.

By the way, if you get some that are more the 360, then subtract those from 360. For instance, if you get a result that is 370, then you know that it's actually 10 degrees. If you think of the zodiac as a circle, it'll make sense.

8
Years and years ago, I worked with a book by Ivy Jacobson called "The Turn of a Lifetime," that I understood to be about calculating Primary Directions according to Ptolemy. To the extent my math abilities allowed, the results in using these Directions were astounding. However, I was only able to go so far, because a mathmatician I am not. I was not able to complete the Speculum that Jacobson describes and that is needed to work with the directions.

About 6 or 7 years ago, I bought Kolev's primary direction computer program. I had some correspondence with him regarding Ivy Jacobson's book, and he told me that the method in her book was not the same as calculated in his program. I did not find the same astounding results from his computer calculations, and I also found his books confusing.

Is anyone else familiar with Jacobson's book or the methods in "The Turn of a Lifetime?" Also, I am considering purchasing Kolev's new program for primary directions. Can anyone give me comments on it before I go for the expense?

Also, I notice that the author of the computer program Mercurius, associated with John Frawley, claims to compute "real" primary directions. Does anyone have any experience with this program insofar as primary directions?
Thanks,
Dlynne

9
This isn't a knock on Mercurius or Kolev's app, but if you're like me, you simply can't afford them!

I'm not a mathematician by a long shot. In fact I never made it past pre-algebra. Good thing I'm an astrologer huh?

The thing about math though, is learning the steps needed to get a result. I may not understand trigonometry very well, but I know that if I take it step by step, I get the right results. If you have a calculator, it's all quite easy. Tedious, but easy.

10
I played with Primary Directions as per Robert Zoller's course all weekend and By rectifying my own chart by 8 minutes I got some really amazing results. I would be interested in looking at the book you mention dlynne but for now I am thrilled to be able to make the information I have work and, Mithra it is making more and more sense as I practice as you say.
I have found a lot of the material in Zoller's course labourious to sift through but he really is a master and I have learned more in the last 18 months than I did in the previous 10 +. I also feel better that I am not the only astrologer out there who isn't a Mathmatician-Those ancients were totally phenomenal to come up with what they did and we are so fortunate to live in these times when we have all these recent translations of ancient texts and the use of computers and the world wide web.We do have it so easy!

12
Also, I am considering purchasing Kolev's new program for primary directions. Can anyone give me comments on it before I go for the expense?
I have Placidus 4.1. I will purchase the new program. That being said, version 4.1 is not user friendly, and I admit that Kolev's books can be challenging at times. They are not breakfast table reading. You have to work with them. It is true in my case that I never could have figured out how to use the program, if I did not have his books. There are still plenty of things I don't understand. Still, there is more than one way to calculate primary directions and more than one "key" (conversion factor: arc = ? time) that can be used with each method. Janus offers a couple of options. I don't have the new version of Solar Fire. With Kolev's program you can calculate primaries any way they have ever been calculated in the past.

Kolev has the math background to fully grasp how each astrologer calculated primaries. He offers all of them. You choose.


Also, I notice that the author of the computer program Mercurius, associated with John Frawley, claims to compute "real" primary directions. Does anyone have any experience with this program insofar as primary directions?
Everyone claims to compute "real" primary directions." If you read Morin, Worsdale, and Pearce, et al, they all claim to be doing it correctly and they all do it differently. All authorities agree that directions to the angles are calculated only one way. This is good as they are the most powerful. It's the interplanetary directions that are calculated differently from one author to another. Each one claiming his is the true method.

In addition to the difficulty with the math, it is also true that a few minutes difference in birth time can result in months difference in "hit" dates. The actual hit dates may not be that important, but an accurate birth time is.

Wait for Martin's book and then, if you're ready, spring for Kolev's program. Directions can be very revealing.

There is one other little known calculation that Placidus can make. If the user chooses, it can calculate the part of fortune the way Worsdale did it, in mundo, which is allegedly the way Ptolemy said it should be calculated. It gives different results than the standard method. For example mine is a day chart and the POF is given as 6 Capricorn 00. The POF in mundo is 9 Sagittarius 48 according to Placidus.

Tom