skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

John Worsdale's Prediction Methods
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1282
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

james_m wrote:
that would be sec prog mars close to an exact sextile, not square to natal sun.

I don't think either Worsdale or Tom said it was a square. Worsdale just says the rays of Mars, without specifying the aspect.

Quote:
any emphasis on the midheaven puts an emphasis on the i.c. it's opposite point which would be making an exact conjunction to his natal sun in this chart at the time of his death. some folks like morin make a connection with the i.c. point and death.. say what you want about secondary progressions, they seem to have relevance in this particular example

Please note that the angles are not progressed by secondary motion (they have none), but by primary motion. In other words, the midheaven to the opposition of the natal Sun is a primary direction. Worsdale used secondary directions the Placidean way, focusing only on the secondary motion of the luminaries.

Quote:
i note the moons declination in kents natal chart at - 8 degree 59' while mars declination is +2 degree 28' - the difference being 6 degree 31'.. this would be the difference in contraparallel, not parallel as i understand the data..

This particular direction sparked a separate thread (if I may be excused for mixing metaphors). It was Petr who correctly identified the method used by Worsdale; see his last post on this page.
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3706
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin Gansten wrote:
james_m wrote:
that would be sec prog mars close to an exact sextile, not square to natal sun.

I don't think either Worsdale or Tom said it was a square. Worsdale just says the rays of Mars, without specifying the aspect.


hi martin,

tom mentioned this and you quoted him on it later, which is why i'm pointing it out! sextile, not square...

Tom wrote:

[I’m tempted to do a little mind reading here. Progressed Mars is only 4 minutes of arc from a square to the natal Sun. Curiously, he doesn’t mention that] considerably increase the baneful power of the Anaretical Directions to the prorogator.


[/quote]

Martin Gansten wrote:

There is another important difference, though:

Quote:
I’m tempted to do a little mind reading here. Progressed Mars is only 4 minutes of arc from a square to the natal Sun. Curiously, he doesn’t mention that

Exactly. That is because Mars is not a Ptolemaic significator, only a promissor; and Placidus and his followers, including Worsdale, only followed the secondary motion of the significators in the zodiac, that is, the Sun and the Moon.


as for my comment on the secondary progression of the midheaven and the way that it was done in the past - thanks for pointing that out. i only point out that an astrologer today using secondary progressions would put emphasis on the sp angles especially and in this particular example they confirm the nature of the event as i see it.


Martin Gansten wrote:

Please note that the angles are not progressed by secondary motion (they have none), but by primary motion. In other words, the midheaven to the opposition of the natal Sun is a primary direction. Worsdale used secondary directions the Placidean way, focusing only on the secondary motion of the luminaries.


thanks also for reminding me of the thread where petr explains the process.. i see how the declination of these planets is a critical ingredient to the process, but it is more complicated then i thought.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1282
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

james_m wrote:
tom mentioned this and you quoted him on it later, which is why i'm pointing it out! sextile, not square...

Oh, you're speaking of the aspect that Worsdale didn't mention. Sorry, I missed that.

Quote:
as for my comment on the secondary progression of the midheaven and the way that it was done in the past - thanks for pointing that out. i only point out that an astrologer today using secondary progressions would put emphasis on the sp angles especially and in this particular example they confirm the nature of the event as i see it.

I think you're missing my point here, which is that there are no secondary progressed angles. When you see the angles making contact with natal planets, those are really primary directions.
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3706
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin Gansten wrote:
james_m wrote:
tom mentioned this and you quoted him on it later, which is why i'm pointing it out! sextile, not square...

Oh, you're speaking of the aspect that Worsdale didn't mention. Sorry, I missed that.


james comment - well you and tom both mentioned it, even if worsdale didn't!!! you'll have to forgive me for making a minor correction to both of your comments!


james_m wrote:
as for my comment on the secondary progression of the midheaven and the way that it was done in the past - thanks for pointing that out. i only point out that an astrologer today using secondary progressions would put emphasis on the sp angles especially and in this particular example they confirm the nature of the event as i see it.


Martin Gansten wrote:
I think you're missing my point here, which is that there are no secondary progressed angles. When you see the angles making contact with natal planets, those are really primary directions.


thanks martin.. i do understand this point and think it's worth talking about.. first off - generating a secondary progressed chart will give an astrologer these angles, even if there is no such thing as secondary progressed angles! the fact that this cross over exists with modern astrologers using secondary progressed data ( or solar arc directions) while treating these same angles as the single most important consideration in either of these predictive tools (even if they are unaware they are really using primary directions), doesn't alter the reality of there use in this manner.. i think it also explains their continued popularity to the exclusion or awareness of primary directions for that matter.. perhaps the fact that software available to generate primary directions hasn't been available up until recently also explains this.. thanks for your additional comments - james
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1282
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

james_m wrote:
the fact that this cross over exists with modern astrologers using secondary progressed data ( or solar arc directions) while treating these same angles as the single most important consideration in either of these predictive tools (even if they are unaware they are really using primary directions), doesn't alter the reality of there use in this manner..

Yes, I know where you're coming from, and in another forum I wouldn't have bothered to comment. But as this forum is the traditional one, and as the thread is entitled John Worsdale's Prediction Methods (rather than Alan Leo's Prediction Methods or Popular Prediction Methods Today), I thought it worth the effort.
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3706
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

martin, you know so much about the history which is another reason to explore this further... the fact is worsdale was using secondary progressions which apparently placidus also used.. whether that is old enough to be considered 'traditional' or not i will leave up to the authorities on making these kinds of distinctions, but just how the data was interpreted ''historically'' i have no idea and - i think that is what the purpose of toms thread here is about.. if you happen to know when the recognition of the moving angles importance in the sec prog chart became so central to the interpretation of these same predictive type charts, id be curious to know.. i don't know the history on that.

further to this, i think it's relevant that sec prog mars is making a close sextile to the sun especially as mars has been defined as having the potential to bring death. does it matter whether it is a sextile or a square? i don't think the nature of the aspect matters, if mars is being defined as capable of this. what do others think?

Tom wrote:
He writes (my comments in red):[/color]

Quote:
the chief mortal promittor in the geniture, these obnoxious applications, compared with the violence of the progression [I’m tempted to do a little mind reading here. Progressed Mars is only 4 minutes of arc from a square to the natal Sun. Curiously, he doesn’t mention that] considerably increase the baneful power of the Anaretical Directions to the prorogator.


The last sentence is the first time he labels Mars as the chief instrument of death. While the directions and progressions clearly implicate Mars, it is not his position that makes him deadly. It seems to be the fact that all this other stuff relates to the body and/or the life and if you pile up all that stuff on Mars, you die. Morinus noted on occasion, that Mars, by itself cannot bring death. It indicates the kind of death. However Morinus did not use things like hyleg and anareta. He used the ASC. The French astrologer had something of an aversion to Arab astrologers and their techniques.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1282
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Placidus invented secondary directions as an auxiliary technique to primary directions, which prior to this were simply called directions. (There is a stray reference in Valens 9.2 to using 'a day for a year', but as usual the technique is not properly explained, and seems not to have been used much or at all in the intervening 1,500 years.)

Then Alan Leo, who didn't really understand either technique, included bits of each (including the primary directed angles) in his own invention called the Progressed Horoscope. This is what modern astrologers still use. As it originated at the turn of the last century, I think it's safe to say that it doesn't count as traditional on this forum. Very Happy

james_m wrote:
further to this, i think it's relevant that sec prog mars is making a close sextile to the sun especially as mars has been defined as having the potential to bring death [...] what do others think?

Worsdale didn't think so, because Mars is not a (Ptolemaic) significator, just a promissor, and secondary directions are concerned only with the motion of the significators.
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some remarks as to Vettius Valens and secondary directions are to read also in this earlier thread here on Skyscript:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7081

Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3706
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi martin,

how would you interpret the comments that worsdale offers on the secondary progressed data? i have removed toms comments to allow one to read worsdale directly.
Tom wrote:

He (worsdale) writes

Quote:
By secondary motion the Sun was in conjunction with Mercury, and the Moon the giver of life had nearly arrived at the place of the Sun in the nativity, and was applying to the square of her radical position, and likewise to the rays of Mars the chief mortal promittor in the geniture, these obnoxious applications, compared with the violence of the progression considerably increase the baneful power of the Anaretical Directions to the prorogator.





martin - you mention mars is not a significator, just a promissor (terms consistant with primary directions) and then go on to say that secondary directions are concerned only with the motion of the significators. it seems very possible that worsdale viewed mars as having some violent influence in the secondary progressions given his words in the preceding passage as quoted by tom. how do you reconcile his words? we may never know the original intent of these astrologers - worsdale and placidus in their use of secondary progressions but it seems open to conjecture given what little information has been left on how to interpret their use.

Martin Gansten wrote:


james_m wrote:
further to this, i think it's relevant that sec prog mars is making a close sextile to the sun especially as mars has been defined as having the potential to bring death [...] what do others think?

Worsdale didn't think so, because Mars is not a (Ptolemaic) significator, just a promissor, and secondary directions are concerned only with the motion of the significators.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Member


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3508
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
martin - you mention mars is not a significator, just a promissor (terms consistant with primary directions) and then go on to say that secondary directions are concerned only with the motion of the significators. it seems very possible that worsdale viewed mars as having some violent influence in the secondary progressions given his words in the preceding passage as quoted by tom.


Yes I dropped the ball when I wrote "square," sorry. Sextile is correct.

James I think you're missing the point. Worsdale followed Ptolemy as explained by Placidus, rigidly. Mars, in the Ptolemy/Placidus/Worsdale viewpoint was not a significator. Therefore Worsdale did not direct Mars or place much importance on directing it. Furthermore, since secondaries were only used to validate primaries, the wouldn't use Mars as a significator in secondaries, either. I'm the one that brought up the topic and wondered why Worsdale didn't mention it and Martin answered that question. There is no way to know exactly what went through Worsdale's mind, but if he thought Mars had violent influence in progressions without regard to primary directions, he didn't say so, and given the way he used progressions there is no reason to believe that he did.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1282
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I second Tom's reply to this, and would add only two points. First, that we have a much better chance of knowing (or conjecturing correctly) the intentions of an author if we actually study his writings in depth, including the historical context in which he was writing. So if we read Placidus, and then Partridge (the only author mentioned with approval by Worsdale!), and then Worsdale, we can actually get a pretty good idea of what Worsdale did and didn't mean.

Second, when Worsdale speaks of the violence of the progression, he is making a five-word reference not to secondary directions, but to yet another technique. The word progression, to Placidean astrologers, referred to the equation of one day in the ephemeris to one synodic month of life. (This is similar, but not identical, to what today is called tertiary progression.) In other words it's a version of secondary directions accelerated by about 12.37. What Worsdale meant by the violence of the progression was probably the progressed Sun fairly closely opposing natal Saturn (and possibly squaring progressed Mars), and the progressed Moon applying to the square of natal Saturn (and possibly to the conjunction of progressed Mars).
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3706
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the first chart is with user defined directions based at a rate of 12.37 per year.
the second chart below the first is with tertiary progressions.


image hosting


image sharing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3706
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi tom and martin,

tom - there are a lot of points to get or miss actually. we may not all be getting the same ones at the same time.

martin - i really appreciate what you have said in your last post as it helps explain this a lot better. one essentially needs to be a scholar in order to know just what was suggested in a persons words from 300 hundred years ago. it makes a lot of sense and requires more reading.. it appears you've done this and are able to intuit what is implied in his words. thanks for sharing this perspective as it goes a long way to explaining what is missing when looking at only one type of secondary progressed or directed chart off the main natal chart.

365.24 divided by 29.531 = 12.37
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ile



Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 132

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom just to say big "Thank You" for opening this thread.
I just start reading Worsdale's book and saw the thread so I will follow it closely.

I also appreciate the comments by Martin and Margherita especially, but those of the other members too.

Please keep this thread going. Worsdale was a practical astrologer and learning from his experience can be a great add for our own astrological skills.

James H. Holden in his "History of Horoscopic Astrology" says on Worsdale:
"He was very capable astrologer who specialized in primary directions using the Placidus system"

P.S. It is amazing to see how astrologers with such a great and lengthy in time experience, still "learning" and approaching astrology as students.
Kind of traces a path of humility for us who are just beginning to walk on it. Thumbs up
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Member


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3508
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As an FYI, James wrote to me and told me about a glitch that produced two blank posts. No one is sure why that happened. I deleted them. There really isn't much I can do about computer glitches, but any time one happens, feel free to send me a private message, and if there is anything I can do, I will.

Back to Worsdale:

I don’t know anything about how children were cared for in early 19th century England, but Worsdale’s words are a bit troubling in that regard, if his words can be depended upon. He gives us, text only, the transits in effect at the time of Kent’s death. But what he says about the transits doesn’t match what he said about the initial consultation with the parents. To wit:


Quote:
… this child lived with his parents in the City of Lincoln, and on the twelfth of July, 1824, in consequence with his not returning home from school at the usual time in the evening, his relatives were alarmed for his safety, and applied to me, on the morning of the following day … page83


Then over on page 89, Mr. Worsdale tells us:

Quote:
At the time he was drowned, the Sun Jupiter and Venus were in conjunction in the watery sign Cancer, and descended below the Western Horizon, with Castor and Pollux; they were likewise in square to Mars, who was separating from the opposition of his place in the nativity, and Saturn had then returned to the quartile of his own position at the time of birth. The Giver of Life was also near the radical Horizon, afflicted by the baneful stations of the Enemies at the time of death.


They were worried when he didn’t return home from school, but he didn’t drown until after sunset? How far from home was school that a 7 year old would be allowed to go alone and why couldn’t they find him before he drowned? Jupiter was occidental of the Sun and wasn’t below the horizon until nearly 8:30 PM LMT. How did Worsdale know the time of death? He doesn't give a clock time, yet tells us it occurred after sunset. If his times are correct, the child was obviously dead before the parents consulted him, but alive for hours after he was due home. He says his first contact with the worried parents was the morning after the child did not return home. Therefore the body had not been found by the morning (or else why consult John Worsdale?), and he gives us no hint of when that gruesome discovery was made.

If these facts as presented are accurate, and I tend to doubt that, the child went to school in the summertime, was allowed to travel back and forth to school without supervision at age 7, and probably was due home between 4:00 pm and 5:00 pm. He would have to be still alive at that time. Why couldn’t they find him?

There may very well be answers to these questions, but I’m getting the sense that Mr. Worsdale is gilding the lily by placing the Sun, and the Moon, hyleg on the natal ASC. The hyleg/Moon on the ASC would have been enough.

As for Saturn “returning” to his square, I don’t feel like creating an ephemeris for 1824, but the only way that could happen is if Saturn was recently retrograde after having passed over the square to the natal position and then backed over it and is now returning. It is also possible that I’m misunderstanding our muse and “returning” had a different meaning to him than it does to me.

Still Mars is square from his detriment to a whole bunch of important planets now in Cancer. Saturn is square the natal position (as it is for every 7 year-old), and the Moon is near the natal ASC on the day of death. But who are the baneful enemies? Transiting Moon trines both malefics, widely by contemporary standards; is this what he meant? Perhaps someone would look at this and offer an opinion before we summarize and move on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated