31
Hi Rob,

I received my copies in less than a week. I ordered them from Dave Roell at Astrology Center of America.

Bear in mind they are just booklets but wow does Rumen Kolev pack some material into them!

32
MarkC wrote:Hi Rob,

I received my copies in less than a week. I ordered them from Dave Roell at Astrology Center of America.
Sounds good! I hope that halloran will be as fast as astroamerica.
By the way (if somebody is interested), I am developing a free astrology program only the primary directions are missing: http://pymorinus.extra.hu/

Re: Aspects are promissors only

33
Martin Gansten wrote:
rob wrote:...

Mundane 'aspects' aren't really aspects in the usual sense, but rather proportions in the respective semi-arcs of two planets. There is no mundane 'aspect point' which can be directed, the way a zodiacal aspect point (i.e., a certain degree on the ecliptic) can. Rather, as the promissor reaches a point in its semi-arc (which is divided into three Placidean houses) corresponding to the position of the significator in its own semi-arc, they are considered to be in aspect. A distance of two houses is a sextile; of three houses, a square; etc.
Exactly right. The idea of directing the aspect point of the promissor is muddling zodiacal and mundane aspects.

34
rob wrote:
MarkC wrote:...
By the way (if somebody is interested), I am developing a free astrology program only the primary directions are missing: http://pymorinus.extra.hu/
Not to go too far off-topic, but your program looks good. I wouldn't bother with Placidus under-the-pole primaries - they're only an approximation to the semiarc version.

When I wrote AstroFrames, I decided not to bother with inputting fixed star info from Sweph. But once the files can be read, and one has a way to select which stars to use, it should work simply with the various calculation routines.

36
Deb wrote:The late 2nd century astrologer Antiochus, in part 15 of his Thesaurus, makes it clear there were three ways to determine aspects [...] The second is the determination of ?temporal aspects? (ie, aspects ?in mundo? used by many traditional astrologers and particularly championed by Placidus de Titus).
Thanks again for pointing this out to me. I have read and re-read the Antiochus passage, and am not satisfied that his 'temporal aspects' and the 'mundane aspects' of Placidus actually amount to the same. I will start a new thread to discuss this.

under-the-pole

37
Ed F wrote:Not to go too far off-topic, but your program looks good. I wouldn't bother with Placidus under-the-pole primaries - they're only an approximation to the semiarc version.
When I wrote AstroFrames, I decided not to bother with inputting fixed star info from Sweph. But once the files can be read, and one has a way to select which stars to use, it should work simply with the various calculation routines.
Hi Ed,

I saw your website too (AstroFrames), it's a good program. I only wrote Morinus because I use Linux instead of Windows and Astrolog -as far as I know- can't calculate primary directions. And of course, it's better to use your own software.
Here, in Hungary the astrologers either use Placidian under the pole(Kuehr) or symbolic on the ecliptic (I don't know all of them). The old ones are following the Astrology Center of Dusseldorf (Schwickert, Kuehr, ...). I've been familiar only with Placidian(under the pole) so far but Placidian(semiarc) is a must. I haven't compared them so far but I was planning to. You said that the under-the-pole is an approximation of the semiarc. It's a valuable information but why does under the pole exist then? Why did Placidus invented it?
Unfortunately Rumen's book on Placidian(under-the-pole) is not out yet.

rob

Morinus

38
Martin Gansten wrote:Are you aware that there is an existing commercial astrology software called Morinus?
Hi Martin,

Thanks. Yes, I know that Wim Van Dam's program is called Morinus or Morinus200.
I wanted to call mine Placidus but there is a commercial hungarian program with that name(calculates Placidian(under the pole only)).
Mine won't be a commercial program, I would only like it to do the traditional stuff well (e.g. Frank Glahn's life cycle won't be implemented because it's not (acc.to one of the best hungarian astrologer).

rob

39
Hi Rob,

There has been another booklet on the theme primary directions by Rumen Kolev.It? first volume series : The primary directions & history of astrology- Bulletin of Research,Vol.1,Sep.2006,Varna,Bulgaria-"Gauricus & Henry II-Medieval astrological Prognosis".It is possible order only directly over R.Kolev.Second volume yet go wrong,but would have been in preparation.

Re: under-the-pole

40
rob wrote:... It's a valuable information but why does under the pole exist then? Why did Placidus invented it?
Unfortunately Rumen's book on Placidian(under-the-pole) is not out yet.

rob
I believe it was because the calculations were supposed to be easier with trig tables.

Anyway, note that AstroFrames can be built with some minor troubles for
Linux and most other UNIX-like OS's. In any case you might find the source distribution of use for the primary calculations (primaries_views-calculations.ad?).

- Ed

Re: under-the-pole

41
Ed F wrote:Anyway, note that AstroFrames can be built with some minor troubles for Linux and most other UNIX-like OS's. In any case you might find the source distribution of use for the primary calculations (primaries_views-calculations.ad?).

I saw your program first when I was searching for Placidian(semiarc).
I know that it's also a multiplatform software. I checked its code and saw that perhaps it was written in pascal(with Kylix!?) and I am a C/C++ programmer. OK, I don't want other non-programmers get bored :-).