31
Right, but Lilly used Regiomontanus based directions, while Atlantean is using Topocentric - they deviate quite a bit.

As far as progression vs direction, the common usage seems to be:

direction - natal planetary positions are held static
progression - they're not

I rather prefer Svarogich's approach that I outlined in my previous message:

1. progression - correlation of two frames of reference
2. direction - double application of a single such correlation
3. profection - sequential application of two different pairs of such correlations.

But I'm guessing that's not going to catch on ;-)

- Ed

32
james_m wrote:
to talk about directing a planet, but not the angles baffles me.. perhaps there is some rationale for moving some of the points in the chart but not others, so i am curious if someone could articulate this for me... let me add, that i don't ask this based on what was done in the past, so much as understanding the rationale behind it.. thanks!
Placidus says that a planet cannot move to an angle or a cusp "in zodiac" because "the zodiac is not the way of the stars to angles", but a planet can move to an angle or a cusp "in mundo", according a portion of its semiarc.

If you don't have already done, but Martin Gansten's book "Primary Directions".

margherita
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com

33
ed - i like Svarogich's approach as well.. it is clear...

topocentric verses regiomontanus was discussed in that 17 page primary direction thread i read recently...doing primary directions topocentric makes more sense to me.. however, i don't care for the idea of directing to house cusps and as i recall margerhita mentioned that the older astrologers didn't actually do this anyway... what do you think?

margerhiita

was placidus overturning the way things had been done before him? i have martin ganstens book and i am trying to digest it in a slow fashion so as to understand the astronomy behind the astrology as best i can.. periodically i am forced into understanding the astronomical mechanics behind these different predictive tools that astrologers use, but i typically forget what they are based on, not long after reading the details of it.. i do retain some info to memory, but not a lot with regard to the astronomy of it..
the software has dumbed me down..

35
james_m wrote: ]margerhiita

was placidus overturning the way things had been done before him?
He says no, and I believe less that it is generally declared in the English speaking traditional world, for example it's obvious that Placidus house system is shaped on Ptolemy chapter on directions, but I agree with Martin that part of his teachings are not traditional.

In every case I'm not exactly a Placidus adept.

i have martin ganstens book and i am trying to digest it in a slow fashion so as to understand the astronomy behind the astrology as best i can.. periodically i am forced into understanding the astronomical mechanics behind these different predictive tools that astrologers use, but i typically forget what they are based on, not long after reading the details of it.. i do retain some info to memory, but not a lot with regard to the astronomy of it..
the software has dumbed me down.
That's one one of favorite books, but obviously the reader cannot understand everything after the first reading.

Anyway I have my idea that astronomy is not so important, I mean what it is really important is to understand the mathematical method , and then you will never forget.

Astronomy is more difficult to visualize, true, but the practical method is very easy

margherita
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com

36
james_m wrote:was placidus overturning the way things had been done before him?
He restored some things (mainly the semi-arc method of direction, which had been largely abandoned in favour of the position-circle method) and invented others (such as his mundane aspects and secondary directions). His house system had been in use earlier; the earliest evidence of which I am aware dates to the 12th century (certainly not to Ptolemy's time).

38
margherita wrote:Maybe yes, but in every case Placidus was very attentive of where points of Ptolemy's example on directions fell.
Oh, I absolutely agree. Placidus very likely only made explicit what he thought that Ptolemy must have intended. Whether Ptolemy did intend it is of course a different matter. :)

The painting on the cover of my primary directions book shows 'Prince Ptolemy' as conceived by a Renaissance artist. I think that's a good allegory for Placidean teachings. On one hand, they idolize Ptolemy; on the other, they can't avoid dressing him up in the garb of their own time.

39
Hello james m

Re: Topocentric and Primary Directions and [james m: "...doing primary directions topocentric makes more sense to me..."]

Considering that Topocentric houses were invented/discovered by using well-verified astrological charts and looking at where the cusps SHOULD be for various Primary Directions at events; it makes logical sense to use this method, since it was empirically derived.

The bottom line... if you want Primary Directions that have "hot cusps" (ie. appropriate cusps being activated at symbolically related events, 3rd for Brothers/Sisters, 5th for Children, 8th for issues of Death, etc.) and aspects that act within scant minutes of arc, then you'll have to use Topocentric. No other approach offers the above mentioned benefits.

To use the antique ;) method is to disregard the fundamental discoveries of the last 100 years, which have lead to a vitally important refinement in how Primary Directions can function.

Since they (Topocentric Primary Directions) are capable (on average) of tying the appropriate events to a period of +/- 2-1/2 weeks, it doesn't make any sense to me to use their less-refined (much older ;) ) "cousin" and have aspects relating to much larger timeframes unnecessarily. It would be like purposefully reaching for foggy glasses, which sit right next to a perfectly clear pair.

Still, I heartily recommend that you do as I did and survey all the various Primary Direction methods that you can find. I believe that it will certainly enhance your appreciation of the Topocentric method.


Peace

James

40
I have ignored the issue of the so-called Topocentric system so far, and have no intention of getting drawn into another debate on it; but as the latest comments by James on the traditional method are almost as misleading as that infamous book by Noel Tyl, let me just note that although the number of 'hits' increases enormously with the use of minor aspects, outer planets and intermediate cusps, the symbolism of the hits presented to support the so-called Topocentric system often seems anything but natural to me.

The traditional use of primary directions aims to identify one or more planets active during a particular period of time, which often covers a number of symbolically related events; therefore there is no one-to-one correspondence between a single direction and a single event. This means that James is criticizing the traditional system for not doing something it never claimed to do (but which, for his own reasons, he obviously thinks it should be doing).

Some of the mathematical problems inherent in the so-called Topocentric system (the cusps of which are nearly identical to Placidus cusps anyway) are discussed here and here.

41
Hello Martin,

I hope that it doesn't feel or seem as though I am baiting you in this conversation. I really don't want to debate it either.

Just realize that on this, a mostly traditional forum, that the "traditional view" tends to ride the headlines while the "opposing view" is buried on page 4, right under the ad for hemorrhoid creme. (likely where some feel it rightfully belongs) ;)

Re: "...The traditional use of primary directions aims to identify one or more planets active during a particular period of time, which often covers a number of symbolically related events"

If the period is large enough, it can contain not only those related to that particular symbolism of which you speak, but of course to many other events that fit a much different symbolism... this is how life is. One can be elected President while grieving the recent death of a Grandmother, for example. Surely it is obvious that, as we more narrowly define the timeframe, we limit out general conditions/events that could statistically be called coincidences.

As the timeframe becomes tighter in time, then it is less-possible to see coincidence as if it were relevant. In other words if "certain astrological symbolism" represents what happens in the 39th year of life, having any certainty of the connection to some event is questionable, since we will likely have some event of that "flavor" during such a large timeframe. In fact, as you have even pointed out, we'll probably have several! On the other hand, if we have for instance, the Ascendant primary directing to conjoin Venus and we say that the person will have this (as Ebertin could describe) important personal experience with important females (likely Wife or Mother) in the environment and we say that it will be within a 2 month period of December 3rd and the person in fact gets married ON December 3rd, though they didn't even choose the date, there is much less maneuvering room to say, "that was just a coincidence."

After faulty birthtimes, coincidence is the greatest problem in Astrology. (imo)

I do appreciate that Primary Directions are used differently by different people. Showing one method and contrasting it to others (especially when they both have the same name ;) ) is not an evil thing, it's just a thing.

Re: "...therefore there is no one-to-one correspondence between a single direction and a single event..."

Pity. There are systems that do allow this, in that events in this tight timeframe will be happening, though there may very well be several, the tight timeframe removes some of the "crapshoot" element of it, in my opinion, since we're not talking about protracted periods of time where we'll find events relating to most POSSIBLE symbolism if we just look hard enough...

As an example, when I saw that (the one time in my life) my Moon could Primary Direct to conjoin Pluto on Jan 16, 2010...this indicated that I would likely have some very emotionally shocking circumstance (pure symbolism) occur within +/- 2 months of that date and since it was Pluto, there is always the possibility that it relates to death by Pluto's natural symbolism of death and decay. Upon looking further, I saw that Mercury would be squaring the 8th cusp on Feb 4, 2010; which reinforced the idea that my mind/thoughts (Mercury) could well be on issues relating to death, since this is a restatement of something that was hinted at as a possibility by the level and theme of the Moon-Pluto conjunction. The fact that the Mercury-8th aspect was a square now ties this to a +/- 1 month time, so I felt very confident that between Jan 4th and Mar 4th that someone would die and it would have a profound emotional impact on me. On February 4th, my Brother (aha, Mercury...brothers, naturally and rules my 3rd House, siblings and 12th House, mournful, undermining things) called me (again, Mercury/3rd House) to inform me of the sudden death (8th House & Pluto here) of my Step-Father. The point in relaying this is not to show some incredible predictive element (of which it really was not), it was to show the reliability of the factors using Topocentric Primary Directions. ie. Once the correct birthtime was established by the many past events of my life, then the future astrological aspects are RELIABLE.

The two main points... 1) without Topocentric Primary Directions I would not have been able to get my birthtime to the specificity necessary in order to really use Primary Directions (effectively)... and 2) the future TPD's are reliable indicators (by pure astrological symbolism and time specificity) of what is to come. Since I use Secondaries and PSSR aspects, there is a lot more that could be written here, but am focusing only on the Primary Directions, ie. the Topic. ;)

Re: "Some of the mathematical problems inherent in the so-called Topocentric system..."

Are these presented from people who actually use and understand the system or by mathematically-justifying philosophical types who just don't BELIEVE that they can work, since they don't understand them and haven't seen the results possible? (ie. is this the same McKransky and Wackford stuff that always gets mentioned? which means nothing in the light of empirical data) The math is really not important conceptually, it is only that the math had to put those cusps at the same place that Primary Directions matched to events when empirically analyzed. The system was developed to match the data...the data (Primary Directions and massive Events Lists came FIRST.) Doesn't matter... I can show case after case after case with dozens of events EACH that show that Topocentric cusps are the hot-points for a House. Let's do that in another thread if there's interest. It's too off-topic to go into here.

This isn't arm-wrestling. The goal isn't to Primary Direct you into submission ;) It is to show another system, strongly contrasted with an old system (of which you happen to have written a book glorifying the old method while giving short shrift to the new method, which I understand through the stated focus of the book, the traditional technique). Anyone that takes the time to actually get their right birthtime and then checks against future events in their life (or out of sample events from the rectification) will see just how well they work.

...and that's what I hope for... a fair "day in court" based on the facts and free of philosophical sniping.

Peace

James