226
Ed F wrote:If the former, why aren't we using topocentric apparent positions with guesses as to the effect of refraction? If the latter, why aren't we using topocentric true positions (without the light-time correction)? Instead we astrologers generally use barycentric apparent positions, as though we are observing from a point ~4000 miles beneath the earth's surface and make up a rather weak rationale as to how the determination of the zodiacal degree of the ascendant localizes these coordinates.
This has been one of my concerns as well. I came from a background in astronomy which came first and I just assumed that charts were always based upon topocentric coordinates (though I didn't know what the word topocentric meant back then - I just assumed that a chart should be based upon where you were actually born, not in the center of the earths core) until sometime in the 80's and then I realized that doing lunar returns that a difference of 1 or even 2 signs skip on the horizon is possible depending upon whether you are using topocentric or geocentric coordinates. Back in the early 70's I used to use Sky and Telescope to place planets in approx position because I really didn't have access to much else at the time and as a child I was unaware of astrological ephemerides. Alex Harvey did have what seemed like a possible explanation for favoring geocentric (but I forgot what that is at the moment).
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

228
Ed F wrote:A bit of a rhetorically put question IMO. Note that I mentioned to Eddy that we were starting to get off topic for the forum by taking a "modern" standpoint. While I have an interest in traditional methods, I am by no means a traditional astrologer.
It wasn't meant as rhetoric, nor as an accusation. I apologize if you took offence (as suggested by your liberal use of adjectives like 'clumsy', 'misguided', 'immature', etc).

I will just say that I have dealt briefly with all the substantive points you bring up in my Primary Directions book; some of them were also discussed by writers of earlier centuries. However, they have not made me want radically to reformulate astrology. Perhaps our minds just work differently. In any case, one point on which we do agree is that such reforming efforts do not belong in this particular forum.

229
From a practical perspective, the important results.They show which way is correct. Zodiacal direkce without latitude gives very good results. Orbis direction narrows the use of the topocentric system. We approach the more ancient astrological perspective.
Legality of the use of direct and conversion primary direction shows in practice. I understand the academic debate, but for the program are important results. Primary direkce under Ptolemy give adequate results.

230
Martin Gansten wrote:Perhaps our minds just work differently. In any case, one point on which we do agree is that such reforming efforts do not belong in this particular forum.
Gassho!

232
I formally released the primary directions in Delphic Oracle. It was necessary to release early because there was a change to the Olson time zone database regarding Mercer county in North Dakota.

I just grayed out the features that are not yet finished (such as printing), but you can play with the data and cross reference transits and progressions by clicking on the direction column labeled M/Z (Mundane/Zodiacal)... Just click on the column headers to sort according to the contents of that column.

The options for the different direction types can be found in the Time Lords system settings (press F5) on the Primary Directions Tab.

You can set you own themes grouping all of your settings under a single name on the Themes sub tab. It takes all your options set on the adjacent tab and saves them all under a name you specify. Just double click and the settings for that theme will re-appear so you don't have to manually go back and forth checking check boxes every time you want to try a different group of settings.
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

233
I finished the print and acrobat file generation routines and fixed a small bug that added oppositions to the list of directions when the opposition checkbox was not checked. The new version also saves header widths when the window is closed or hidden so you can resize the headers by clicking and dragging... You can click the header to sort according to the contents of that header. Log in to the Delphic Oracle upgrade page below:

http://www.astrology-x-files.com/upgrades.html

I should note that some may find the symbols used in the list a bit strange. You might see a conjunction glyph followed by an opposition glyph in the promissor list for instance. The conjunction glyph is what I used for the prenatal syzygy. Also the MC glyph looks very much like the Moon glyph. You can change the glyphs used in the program by pressing F2 and going to the glyphs tab, you can select which glyph (of 256) available you want to use for all display objects.
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

234
Are there any traditional examples of actual primary driection data - i.e. a specific chart and then showing dates for the directions themselves?

I know of some in Lilly, but I can't think of other examples for some reason.

235
I'm not exactly sure of the nature of your question, but if you're looking for specific charts with this data, Morin goes into several in Book 22 of Astrologia Gallica. John Worsdale (1766 - 1828), listed them with other techniques when discussing specific charts in his book Celestial Philosophy published the year of his death. Worsdale would calculate progressions directions, parallels, transits etc and then list them in the chronological order of occurrence. Then he would look for groupings of events to make predictions. He made great use of primary directions. Kessinger offers a reprint of his book. The Ascella reprint may be difficult to find.

Tom

236
Tom wrote:I'm not exactly sure of the nature of your question, but if you're looking for specific charts with this data, Morin goes into several in Book 22 of Astrologia Gallica. John Worsdale (1766 - 1828), listed them with other techniques when discussing specific charts in his book Celestial Philosophy published the year of his death. Worsdale would calculate progressions directions, parallels, transits etc and then list them in the chronological order of occurrence. Then he would look for groupings of events to make predictions. He made great use of primary directions. Kessinger offers a reprint of his book. The Ascella reprint may be difficult to find.

Tom
That's what I'm talking about: showing a chart and then listing various hit dates through primary directions.

I wanted to have some actual examples to test with.

237
I wanted to have some actual examples to test with.
Then I suggest Worsdale's Celestial Philosophy. I looked it over again last night. He gives a table of directions for each chart. Mostly he uses primary directions and they are in zodiac, in mundo, direct and converse. In other words he covers all bases. He also uses rapt parallels, as well as secondary progressions and transits. He determines the date of perfection then lists everything in chronological order.

In the text he goes into detail as to why he made the judgment he did, and almost every chart deals with death, near death, violent death and a few diseases tossed in here and there. His language can be bit arcane at times, but he isn't too difficult to figure out.

Two things you should be aware of:

1) He uses local apparent time, not LMT. Using the time he gives and the location, usually Lincoln UK, with LAT will give positions and house cusps very close to what he published.

2) He does not determine the part of fortune in the usual way. He claims he uses Ptolemy's method. We discussed it here a year or two ago and I'm not sure we ever really determined how he did it even with his explanation. Rumen Kolev's Placidus program can calculate the POF that way.He is a highly technical astrologer.

Despite his haughtiness or what appears to me as his haughtiness, Worsdale was a first rate astrologer and is worth the effort it takes to get through him.

One caveat. In the introduction he informs the reader that the tables in the book are most accurate and the student can follow along without obtaining any other text. The reproductions by Ascella and Kessinger, do not contain the tables. You'll be on your own there.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_ ... Submit.y=0

Good luck

Tom