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:
The Life & Work of Vettius Valens
by Deborah Houlding
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 zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

martin ganstens book - annual predictive techniques
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  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: 1415
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2021 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I never doubted the good intentions of your questions, James. To save me the bother of re-typing things, though, can I ask you to re-read pp. 35-37 on the concepts of direct and converse?

Basically, before the 19th century (when many misunderstandings began to creep into European astrology due to the lack of an unbroken tradition), all directions were made with the primary motion, that is, clockwise = forward in time. Some were called direct, others converse, but 'converse' did not mean backwards in time/anticlockwise.

What almost all modern software calls converse is thus different from the traditional concept of converse. The only exception I'm currently aware of is Delphic Oracle (because Curtis took my course).

I think the main reason most modern astrologers don't use primary directions is that they have no idea how to use them (because they have lost touch with the more than 1,500-year tradition to which they were central). Even if there is software to do the calculations, you need to understand both what the various technical options mean and how to interpret directions. This is why I wrote my earlier book, and included a lot of material on directions in the recent one, and also why I offer an entire course on the subject.
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1237
Location: Delhi

Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2021 3:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin Gansten wrote:
pankajdubey wrote:
Here, the ascendant is obviously the signifactor but which way is it moving to the trine of mercury ? or is it the zodiacal point of 10 deg aquarius ( the trine point of mercury)moving to conjunct the ascendant .

Yes, from the perspective of observational astronomy it is the aspect point that is moving towards the horizon. These matters are discussed on pp. 32-37 and 68-70. (From p. 33: So the significator’s symbolic motion through the zodiac is actually accomplished by the zodiac being moved across the natal significator, which is kept fixed.) If you think this is a counterintuitive way of describing things, it may comfort you to know that al-Bīrūnī thought the same, about a millennium ago. Smile Nevertheless, I have stuck to the traditional style in order to provide a bridge into earlier textual sources for the reader.


The problem with explaining the motion still exists :
Describing the motion of signifactor by keeping it fixed :-)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1415
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2021 6:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pankajdubey wrote:
The problem with explaining the motion still exists :
Describing the motion of signifactor by keeping it fixed :-)

Think of it as a two-stage process. The first stage is purely symbolic: you select a point in the chart and imagine moving it forward (or, in the case of converse directions, backward) through the chart, passing through the terms and encountering the bodies and aspects of the planets, fixed stars, etc.

The second stage is translating this symbolic motion into natural, using the primary motion of the celestial sphere following birth (never before birth): how can these points be brought into contact? In the present case, it is only by the aspect point moving up to the eastern horizon.
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3980
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2021 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks martin... that is helpful to recommend i re-read the section you refer to page 35-37.... a part of me thinks i ought to invest in your course and skip investing in 100's of dollars of books, but i am not a fan of online courses - maybe because i have never taken any! spending money in bits and drabs with a book here and here seems easier!


using my example @ Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:07 pm - the moon has been directed to the position of the ascendant. do i have that correct?? as a byproduct it appears mercury has been directed to the midheaven so why doesn't that one count as a primary direction?? or is it that only the angles are going in a primary direction and the planets are stationary?? or?? i think you are correct the term primary directions are hard to appreciate... what is the prime direction of the planets? is this the same as the direction of the sun over the course of the day?? is that considered the primary motion? so mercury can't technically go in the direction of the midheaven as it is already past the midheaven... for that to happen it would have to be going in a counter clockwise or converse direction.. i use these terms in the way i think of the sun going clockwise over the course of the day...

it holds a promise - promissor, or it signifies something - a significator.... i think one of the reasons for me these terms are hard to appreciate is i think of planets all holding promise or signifying something.... so perhaps i find the terms confusing... the planets can switch and be thought of as promissors or significators, as can the sun, moon, midheaven and ascendant.... all of this is because?? because one is either looking at primary directions or converse primary directions?? in the options you provide to get this data i recognize how the data changes, so i take it this is all based on whether one is looking at the PDs or the converse PDs...

on a different but related technical note - you mention with lattitude countless times in the book... i am sure it holds meaning for you, but it is a bit vague what you are implying... are you just re-emphasizing the fact latitude is being used only on the significators for PDs, or??

thanks martin.. sorry for being tedious here... i really would like to understand and i will be the first to acknowledge having to write down ideas isn't the best way to convey more complicated or abstract concepts... any help and insight you are willing to share, i am very appreciative... thanks...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1415
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, James, it sounds as if you could use the course! Wink Did you see my reply to Pankaj about the two-stage process?

Quote:
Think of it as a two-stage process. The first stage is purely symbolic: you select a point in the chart and imagine moving it forward (or, in the case of converse directions, backward) through the chart, passing through the terms and encountering the bodies and aspects of the planets, fixed stars, etc.

The second stage is translating this symbolic motion into natural, using the primary motion of the celestial sphere following birth (never before birth): how can these points be brought into contact? In the present case, it is only by the aspect point moving up to the eastern horizon.

So you begin by deciding on a significator: a point that signifies the matter you want to investigate. Next, you move that symbolically along until it meets a point that 'promises' some change for better a worse: a promissor. Then you figure out how that contact will come about by the natural (clockwise, at least if you live in the northern hemisphere) motion of the celestial sphere. In direct directions, this will be by keeping the significator fixed (even if it is a planet) and letting the promissor move towards it.

Primary directions is actually a modern term: it was coined by Placidus in the 17th century (because he invented another technique which he called secondary directions, and he needed to distinguish them). Before that, they were just called directions. But yes, the primary motion used for (primary) directions is the same as that of the sun over the course of a day: the rotation of the celestial sphere, or of the earth around its axis, if you prefer.

The example you give is a primary direction, but a converse one (as I said before), where from the point of observational astronomy the promissor (Mercury) is kept fixed and the significator (the degree on the MC) is moved towards it. Symbolically, we would say that the MC is directed to Mercury against the order of the signs (= conversely), because it is always the significator that is said to be directed to something.

Planets, especially the luminaries, can be either significators or promissors, but the angles can only be significators (with a single exception, to do with the length of life), and aspect points can only be promissors.

When a promissor has latitude (that is, when it is a planet other than the sun), you can direct a significator either to its actual body in the sky or to its projected position on the ecliptic (= its zodiacal position). The former is a direction with latitude, the latter is one without latitude.

I hope this makes things a little clearer.
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1415
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2021 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I forgot to answer your question about the moon. Because the angles can only be significators, we would say that the Asc as significator has been directed to (a conjunction with) the moon without latitude by direct motion. The corresponding direction with latitude (that is, using the actual body of the moon rather than its ecliptical/zodiacal degree) took place four years later. This is something you can't see when using a chart rather than a table/speculum to look at directions.
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1237
Location: Delhi

Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2021 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Japanese Zen koan:
Who is the signifactor , who is the promissor.
Who is going direct and who is converse ?
https://youtu.be/OUDV6lxzcCc
It is the time that limits us- if life is 120yrs max and we have a degree for a year then all events have to be fitted in that 120 degree movement.
7 planets + conjunction sextile square trine and opposition -to increase the events add Asc And MC to it.
7 planets are general to all but ascendant and MC are more specific to me.
As soon as you do that it starts getting complicated.
The PDs should be explained in simple terms.
Let me move and see what I encounter.
I stay put and see what comes to me.

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



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3980
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

martin,

thanks.. i would be the first to admit i am confused and need to take your course! i have this ingrained habit of wanting to figure it out on my own, but realize i am taking advantage of your good nature asking you all these questions! i like to think i am an autodidact, but in fact we all learn from each other and i would be the first to acknowledge that, especially here where i am trying to learn from you and your book!

sticking with the example of the moon to ascendant - you say
Martin Gansten wrote:
I forgot to answer your question about the moon. Because the angles can only be significators, we would say that the Asc as significator has been directed to (a conjunction with) the moon without latitude by direct motion. The corresponding direction with latitude (that is, using the actual body of the moon rather than its ecliptical/zodiacal degree) took place four years later. This is something you can't see when using a chart rather than a table/speculum to look at directions.


first off, i think part of my problem is leaning too heavily on the morinus software... when i get the speculum for this ( 2002) it says - Z for zodiac) moon(promissor) is directed to ascendant ( significator ) 2002 - 01/15..... it also says further down M for mundane) moon ( promissor) is directed to ascendant ( significator ) 2004 - 04/02...

looking at the speculum i note ascendant 17 cap 42 for 2002 april 16th and midheaven 18 scorpio 59.. in the natal chart moon is at 17 cap 13, so the ascendant has already passed this point by 2002... may 15 2001 directed ascendant is at 15 cap 55... so some time between may 2001 and april 2002 - the ascendant passed by the location by degree - zodiac - of moon... the speculum says jan 15, 2002 as i mentioned in the last paragraph! but it is only 2 years later, and not 4 when it shows this via the mundane directions.... so are the mundane directions based on latitude and the zodiac not??

i suppose the columns could be ordered different on the morinus software, so i am still fighting thru the use of the language and via the software i am using, along with the fact that i am a slow learner, lol!

pankajdubey...

looking at the wheel reminds me of how my head is spinning trying to understand these directions!! it also reminded me of my time in india in that area which we really enjoyed.. we had the good fortune of meeting a group of palace musicians coming back on monday from jodhpur to jaiper who invited us to their house in jaiper... they were a muslim family -very gracious and amazing world class musicians - living in very humble circumstances, but very kind to use treating us to a world class musical experience of classical indian music, along with supper... we never got to see the women who cooked the food for us.... we were in a room with all men.. however, when we were leaving, we turned back to see the women waving from the window to us... it was a very memorable experience and one of great kindness on their part... it was one of our most memorable experiences in india! we may have passed thru the area where the video is from as we were on both the train from jaisalmer to jaiper and again on the train from jaiper to amritsar..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1415
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're welcome, James. As I said, it's gratifying to see people working with the book -- and hopefully one or two others may be learning something from this exchange too.

Quote:
first off, i think part of my problem is leaning too heavily on the morinus software...

Nearly all software offering primary directions presents them in a way that differs from traditional usage. That is why I have a separate appendix on how to set up, but also how to read the output of, software like Morinus. You may want to look more closely at that.

We also get different figures for the moon because I correct its position for parallax (Options > Appearance I > Topocentric).

Quote:
when i get the speculum for this ( 2002) it says - Z for zodiac) moon(promissor) is directed to ascendant ( significator ) 2002 - 01/15..... it also says further down M for mundane) moon ( promissor) is directed to ascendant ( significator ) 2004 - 04/02...

As I said before, in traditional terminology it is always the significator that is directed to the promissor, never vice versa, so we need to read these from right to left.

Quote:
so are the mundane directions based on latitude and the zodiac not??

Mundane conjunctions/oppositions will coincide in practice with zodiacal conjunctions/oppositions with latitude, but not other aspects. I discuss this on pp. 68-70.
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1237
Location: Delhi

Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Related to the above is the traditional way of designating a direction: irrespective of whether it is direct or converse – that is, no matter which point is kept fixed and which is moved with the primary motion – it is always the significator that is said to be directed to the promissor, not the other way round.

So, the main difference is the way one presents it and secondly, not to go in pre-natal times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1579

Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin Gansten wrote:
These matters are discussed on pp. 32-37 and 68-70. (From p. 33: So the significator’s symbolic motion through the zodiac is actually accomplished by the zodiac being moved across the natal significator, which is kept fixed.


Hello Martin,

it's a pleasure to follow this discussion and to see you taking your time and energy and patience to answer all these questions - after you have written two books of the theme.

Is my understanding of your quotation above correct, when I paraphrase and augment it thus?

The natal significators are casted in two identical chart wheels.

In primary direction the natal significators of the outer wheel become the significators, the natal significators of the inner wheel become the promissors.

Now the outer wheel, together with the significators (the former natal significators), is moved clockwise, accordingly to the (apparent) direct motion of the zodiak , i.e. from the east to the south and then to the west, from the left to the right.

The inner wheel, together with the promissors (the former natal significators), is not moved.

By this approach the primary directions will always make the directed significators of the outer wheel come to the right side of the promissors of the inner wheel, after they have reached and then passed those.

Many thanks in advance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1415
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pankajdubey wrote:
So, the main difference is the way one presents it and secondly, not to go in pre-natal times.

Yes, those are two major points, of which the latter is the more important. There are many other technical differences between modern and earlier authors (e.g., which planets and other points to consider, which aspects to use, how to equate arcs to time, etc.), but the two pairs of technical concepts that have been almost universally misunderstood since the late 19th century or thereabouts are direct/converse and significator/promissor.
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1415
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

johannes susato wrote:
it's a pleasure to follow this discussion and to see you taking your time and energy and patience to answer all these questions - after you have written two books of the theme.

Thank you for those kind words.

Quote:
Is my understanding of your quotation above correct, when I paraphrase and augment it thus?

Well, yes and no, but mostly no. Very Happy Sorry about that. The sort of biwheel you describe makes sense because the primary motion does cause the zodiac and the planets in it to move in that way, but I don't know if there is any software that uses such a biwheel. Perhaps there is, but it would need two zodiac rings: one fixed and one moving clockwise. And I'm not sure how easy it would be to display the varying rising, culminating and setting times of the signs correctly. But if it could be done, then the inner wheel (showing the fixed chart elements) would contain the significators, as long as we are talking about directions in direct motion. Such a biwheel would represent the perspective of observational astronomy.

What Morinus (and perhaps other software with a primary-directions chart function?) does is visually simpler but involves a bit of make-believe: it has the promissors inside, as you say, and the significators outside; but the significators are shown as moving forward through the zodiac, that is, anticlockwise. In reality (relatively speaking), the apparent zodiacal position of a significator at any given point in time indicates the part of the zodiac that was at that time directed to the natal place of the significator.

I hope that wasn't too confusing. Very Happy
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1415
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For what it's worth, and for those with a more visually oriented learning style, here is a video that may perhaps be useful. It was made to show how a traditional armillary sphere works, but I have found armillaries a very useful tool for understanding primary directions:
https://youtu.be/M0chCdFEaP0
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3980
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks so much martin!

i was quite fascinated about the idea of parallex with the moon as my own chart has the moon close to the ascendant and also very close to the border of libra and scorpio - late libra in lahiri and scorpio in krishnamurthi ayanamsa... what happens when i choose parallex, it is in the first degree of scorpio in either system.. but i was unable to find the option for this in morinus software until you pointed it out in the appearance settings to opt for topocentric... again, the words are one thing, but understanding what they mean - another... so, i take it by opting for topocentric - this is including the parallex of the moon.. i wouldn't have known this otherwise...

at any rate, now with the changed settings indeed i see the 4 year difference between the zodiac direction involving the moon and the mundane direction of same... thanks for clarifying this for me.. i have been reading the book from front to back for the most part.. i thought i would save looking at the end part of the dynamics of the software til after, but i can see the wisdom in looking at it beforehand too... thanks for your suggestion on this too...

i have a few questions related to your emphasis on the terms of the directed ascendant for the most part... am i mistaken in thinking you put a lot of emphasis on the terms of the moving angles and the directed ascendant in particular?? also - if the rising sign is in the terms of saturn, does this put greater emphasis on the natal and solar return location of saturn?? i believe i am picking this up from reading the last section of chapter 8 with example L... it seems to me the terms, and where the directed ascendant is in particular is a real focus for your analysis of the chart, to the point if i was to put what i sense is a heirachy of your emphasis on importance - terms of the moving ascendant would be at the top of the list.... is this an accurate impression on my part? regardless of that, are you dovetailing this particular focus on the terms with great consideration of where the planet is natally and in the solar return year?? it seems you are!

i recognize how it becomes a challenge puting a number of predictive techniques into a blender and coming out with an end result.. i have yet to read chapter 9 - which i plan on doing tonight and which goes into this... maybe it is a bit premature for me to ask, but it seems everyone has to make a choice based on their experience, of what to put greater emphasis and value on.. i have been noticing a number of the examples seem to line up with my own thinking that the angles of the solar return charts and which house they land in the natal chart, has some bearing on the nature of the year.. you haven't talked about this yet, so perhaps it is not something that was discussed by these earlier astrologers from different cultures...

anyway- here is how it looks to me the emphasis you place in order of importance..
terms - directions - kind of a tie, as so much emphasis is put on the terms as i read it..
followed by where the profection lord is and data from the solar return.... the profection lord and data from the solar return seems to factor in a lesser way then the terms and directions.... is this an accurate impression of your work and emphasis??

fi haven't really worked with the terms any.. your book is encouraging me to consider them, but i struggle with adopting a system that has no basis in anything concrete other then the past... has anyone gone into explaining how they came about? i know there are 3 options to choose from - egyptian or dorotheus which is what you use, but there is also ptolemy and one other order for the terms - i am forgetting... has anyeone tried to fathom why this system is in place and how it came about?? i know this is getting off the topic of your book, but of course i am still curious and if you have anything to say on this - i would be most curious...

to go back to the profection lord - i did read the section from the translation and free download from brill of the book 'jewel of astrology'... i seem to have read some of the different ways of evaluating which planet to choose for lord of the year from one of ben dykes books - i can't remember which one... maybe it was a translation of bonati... the indian author dr. charak puts a fair amount of emphasis on which house the profection lord lands in, in the solar return chart.. perhaps this is his system, or one he has gotten via different sources... i would only say that to go back to an earlier idea - how an astrologer puts emphasis, or not, on a certain factor in all of this is fairly subjective or based on the individual astrologers particular observations and experience... not having as much experience with some of this - and basically none with an emphasis on the terms, is the motivation for these additional questions i ask... thanks for your generousity here!

the video was quite good... i was wondering how you felt about the use of the tropical zodiac in the video, LOLOL! regardless it was a nice video that showed in a more 3 dimensional way, what we are all trying to understand on a flat surface, or computer screen... thank you again..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
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  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
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