211
In the Kiev case of my 1 Feb post 6:02pm, I?ve calculated the eight possible methods of traditional directions for Moon to Venus.
Kiev, Ukraine, 21 August 2007, 3:00 am EET (=0h UT) ST 23h57m49s
The calculations of the eight situations can be seen in that post, where I just added them.
For a clear overview, I mention here the eight situations and the results in degrees and years/months (Ptolemy key, no secondary motion, geocentric Moon)
Situations:

In zodiaco
Situation A Mo to Ve+60 = 30?50?
A 30y10m
Situation B Mo-60 to Ve = 39?58?
B 40y 0m

In mundo (Bianchini)
Situation B Mo to Ve+60 = 30?48?
C 30y10m
Situation D Mo-60 to Ve = 34?18?
D 34y 4m

In zodiaco
Situation E Mo to Ve-60 = 191?49?
E 191y10m
Situation F Mo+60 to Ve = 175? 4?
F 175y 1m

In mundo (Bianchini)
Situation G Mo to Ve-60 = 193?53?
G 193y11m
Situation H Mo+60 to Ve = 181?26?
H 182y 5m


Perhaps someone could give the correct terminology direct/converse
I believe that A,C,E,G are direct and that B,D,F,H are converse directions. Is this correct?

212
Eddy wrote:Perhaps someone could give the correct terminology direct/converse
I believe that A,C,E,G are direct and that B,D,F,H are converse directions. Is this correct?
No, the other way around. When the aspect point is the one being moved with the diurnal motion, you have a direct direction. When the aspect point is regarded as fixed, you have a converse direction. In either case, an aspect point can never be a significator. Therefore, directions A and C concern areas signified by the Moon; directions B and D, areas signified by Venus. The remaining directions are hardly relevant even in Ukraine, as no amount of yoghurt is likely to prolong life beyond 175 years. ;-)

213
Thanks Martin, it's still quite complicated. Especially when I see that in general 'directing to' is referred to in another way than I would expect. I probably should have written the list differently. Here, http://altairastrology.wordpress.com/20 ... ns-direct/ , directing to MC means that MC is fixed, while I would say that from an ecliptical referential point of view, the MC moves along the fixed points of the radix chart.

I see just two ways of 'fixing, to the Ecliptic and to the Earth. When ecliptic is used, with the natal planets and cusps measured along the ecliptic, the only things that move in the say 6 hours after birth in which the directions are formed, are MC and Asc. In 6 hours, 90? for MC and more or less for Asc, depending on rising signs' speed. Not even the Moon moves more than 4? in this time-span. When Earth is used, the planets are fixed to Earth and during the next 6 hours all planets move some 90? passing the horizon and meridian and all fixed points of the natal planets. In this case, I feel the use of secondary motion has to be used for the moving planets. The former would be some ancestor prototype, the latter would then be the method of Placidus.

I find the classical method quite complicated. Not that I argue it's use but I wonder whether the very first astrologers who thought about primary directions wouldn't have confined themselves just to the angles, or only the Ascendant (since MC was discovered/used only later). This is the easiest method, so perhaps it could be the first in evolution process of the primaries. I'd say short after the first mention of the Ascendant as a mathematical point in 4 BC (according to Michael Baigent's 'From the omens of Babylon').

I had a look whether something happened in Kiev that date 21 August 2007. It's quite an interesting date. That day the 1000th kilometer of a railwaymodernization was done http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-4637875 ... ilway.html
and the Saint Sophia Cathedral was listed under the 'seven wonders of Ukraine' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Soph ... al_in_Kiev
No need of yoghurt for these :) .

214
Martin Gansten wrote:
Eddy wrote:Perhaps someone could give the correct terminology direct/converse
I believe that A,C,E,G are direct and that B,D,F,H are converse directions. Is this correct?
No, the other way around. When the aspect point is the one being moved with the diurnal motion, you have a direct direction. When the aspect point is regarded as fixed, you have a converse direction. In either case, an aspect point can never be a significator. Therefore, directions A and C concern areas signified by the Moon; directions B and D, areas signified by Venus. The remaining directions are hardly relevant even in Ukraine, as no amount of yoghurt is likely to prolong life beyond 175 years. ;-)
Should I take out the check box allowing promissors to be directed to aspects of significators?

This too seems strange to me... sort of like dealing with a subject matter not directly on its own (conjunction) by (as Schmidt might say) using secondary intentionality (some aspect of the significator rather than the significator itself). Such a process would be similar to the situation in mathematics where we let "X" stand for something. We deal with X mathematically using rules we believe to be universally true, but are divorced from the direct experience of "X" and therefore potentially are divorced from the reality of "X", getting only some "aspect" of "X".

However, if we inquire about some subject matter such as praxis, Valens says we can look to the MC, but also the trigons of the MC as well the 2nd and 6th. Is this not like an aspect of a significator?
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

215
There's something else that's been bugging me... it doesn't quite make sense to me to have a mundane direction with aspects that use the zodiac. This seems to me like mixing reference frames. If one uses the zodiac, then it makes sense, but it is a direction in zodiaco. I don't see how one can have aspects in mundo when the aspect points are reduced to some place on the ecliptic.
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

216
zoidsoft wrote:There's something else that's been bugging me... it doesn't quite make sense to me to have a mundane direction with aspects that use the zodiac. This seems to me like mixing reference frames. If one uses the zodiac, then it makes sense, but it is a direction in zodiaco. I don't see how one can have aspects in mundo when the aspect points are reduced to some place on the ecliptic.
Likewise.

217
Ed F wrote:
zoidsoft wrote:There's something else that's been bugging me... it doesn't quite make sense to me to have a mundane direction with aspects that use the zodiac. This seems to me like mixing reference frames. If one uses the zodiac, then it makes sense, but it is a direction in zodiaco. I don't see how one can have aspects in mundo when the aspect points are reduced to some place on the ecliptic.
Likewise.
I think what I have listed as aspects in Mundo are really aspects in Zodiaco with latitude, so I'll switch the labels on the options and refactor objects labeled as mundane.
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

218
Eddy wrote:Thanks Martin, it's still quite complicated. Especially when I see that in general 'directing to' is referred to in another way than I would expect.
I think most of the confusion comes down to terminology, including the 'to/from' issue. Earlier authors generally say that they are directing the significator to the promissor, irrespective of which point is moving towards which astronomically speaking.

For example, if the Sun in the 10th house is your significator (e.g. for honours), and you have the square of Saturn in the 12th house and the trine of Jupiter in the 9th house, a traditional author may speak of:
1. directing the Sun to the square of Saturn by direct motion (meaning that the zodiacal degree where the square falls is moved to the position of the Sun);
2. directing the Sun to the trine of Jupiter by converse motion (meaning that the Sun is moved to the position of the zodiacal degree where the trine falls).
I find the classical method quite complicated. Not that I argue it's use but I wonder whether the very first astrologers who thought about primary directions wouldn't have confined themselves just to the angles, or only the Ascendant (since MC was discovered/used only later). This is the easiest method, so perhaps it could be the first in evolution process of the primaries.
No doubt directions to the ascendant were the earliest form of the technique.
I'd say short after the first mention of the Ascendant as a mathematical point in 4 BC (according to Michael Baigent's 'From the omens of Babylon').
I haven't the time just now to hunt for sources, but the ascendant was definitely used much earlier than that, in the 2nd century BCE.

219
zoidsoft wrote:Should I take out the check box allowing promissors to be directed to aspects of significators?
That rather depends on whether you are using the terms promissor/significator in the traditional sense (determined by astrological function) or in the modern sense (determined by astronomical motion). If the former, then only aspects of promissors are used -- or, to put it more exactly, the aspect points themselves become promissors.
However, if we inquire about some subject matter such as praxis, Valens says we can look to the MC, but also the trigons of the MC as well the 2nd and 6th. Is this not like an aspect of a significator?
I don't think this relates to aspects as such (although, in a whole-sign context, planets in the 2nd and 6th will aspect the 10th by trine).

220
Ed F wrote:
zoidsoft wrote:There's something else that's been bugging me... it doesn't quite make sense to me to have a mundane direction with aspects that use the zodiac. This seems to me like mixing reference frames. If one uses the zodiac, then it makes sense, but it is a direction in zodiaco. I don't see how one can have aspects in mundo when the aspect points are reduced to some place on the ecliptic.
Likewise.
I can't really see the problem here, but I suspect that may be because we are not using terms like 'mundane' in the same sense. Perhaps defining the terms would be a good place to start?

221
I think that's a constructive approach.

The definition of mundane position I use (and I do realize it's not the only one) is a characterization of the ascensional state of a point on the celestial sphere: a mapping from such a 2D point to a 1D longitudinal coordinate.

Clearly there are many theories for how to do that, and what points to map. I personally do not see why zodiacal projections should be used as proxies for points with non-zero celestial latitude - other than that is the traditional way of doing it (including the technique of "directing to the terms/bounds).

- Ed

222
Martin Gansten wrote:
Ed F wrote:
zoidsoft wrote:There's something else that's been bugging me... it doesn't quite make sense to me to have a mundane direction with aspects that use the zodiac. This seems to me like mixing reference frames. If one uses the zodiac, then it makes sense, but it is a direction in zodiaco. I don't see how one can have aspects in mundo when the aspect points are reduced to some place on the ecliptic.
Likewise.
I can't really see the problem here, but I suspect that may be because we are not using terms like 'mundane' in the same sense. Perhaps defining the terms would be a good place to start?
As I have it now in the program, I have a checkbox for Mundane directions and one for Zodiacal directions and the aspect checkboxes when interpreted with the Mundane option I would think should more logically use one of the valid Mundane aspect projection planes, but to use a zodiacal projection plane for the Mundane option does not seem consistent because in this case the only difference between the two becomes reduced to Zodiacal with latitude and Zodiacal without latitude.

The procedure takes the actual planets position in the sky in right ascension and declination, ecliptic latitude and longitude in every instance, but for the case where zodiacal directions are desired, the coordinates for the directions are either taken with latitude or reduced to 0 ecliptic latitude. A mundane bodily position is the same as zodiacal with latitude and if it is the Sun, it is the same regardless (well almost - as long as you disregard the solar barycenter). As I have it now, I don't have any "true" mundane aspects in these arrays:

FMundoRasc[0..7] (as opposed to FZodiacoRasc[0..7]
FMundoDecl[0..7]

0 = conjunction
1 = sinister sextile
2 = sinister square
3 = sinister trine
4 = opposition
5 = dexter trine
6 = dexter square
7 = dexter sextile

So I get the dexter trine of a body by adding 240 degrees to the ecliptic longitude of the planet and use the latitude of the planet as is (Zodiacal Bianchini currently has a bug) and then convert that position to right ascension and declination.

It would seem to me that what I should be doing here is something different because the above case is the same as zodiacal with latitude. For instance, it occurred to me that I could have added 240 in right ascension instead of ecliptic latitude. This would have been an aspect measured along the equator.

All of this is then funneled down into the routine that Ed Falis gave me for Placidian semi arc.
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC