16
Hi Graham,

Granted, 7 planets are more than 4 angles. :) But keep in mind that a person would have to live for 360 years in order to experience all possible directions. Dividing the total number of directions by 4 or 5 would get us closer to an average life span (in the more fortunate parts of the world).

The main question, however, is whether directions to angles account for all (or even most) major event in life. In my own chart, and assuming that we are talking about direct directions, there are four (4) conjunctions to the angles, occurring at ages 7, 29, 62 and 68. The one at 29 did give a major result (incidentally, that was the Moon rising, with parallax and secondary motion), but there have been many other events, some far more important, without any angular hit.

I absolutely agree that transits ans directions/progressions (of whatever kind) are often used indiscriminately, to justify whatever happens to coincide more or less in time. In my opinion, a more useful approach is to determine the most important planets/points (overall, or for a particular area of life) from the natal chart, and to keep track of their directions.

17
3D wrote:...
What time orb do you give them?
What aspects? (I just looked at conjunctions and oppositions)
Is there a software calculating the planets? proper motion with interplanetary primary directions?...
Ren?,

Approximately 6 months either side of exact. Interplanetary directions last longer than angle or cusp contacts.

I use conjunctions, oppositions, squares, and less so semisquares and sesquares. I also use reflections around the angles, and consider them comparable to angle conjunctions in power.

The Concept program will do this. But it does not give lists of directions, only the directed positions that can be compared with a radix (all aspect within your specified orbs are listed).

- Ed

18
Martin Gansten wrote: To my knowledge, there is no software that makes allowance for secondary motion except for the Moon. The latter is included as an option in Rumen Kolev's software, but then he doesn't do parallax. (Ed, I forget: does your software include either of these options?)
Martin,

AstroFrames does not account for secondary motion - it's traditional directions, though someday I hope to implement what is in Concept. AstroFrames does allow selection of topocentric positions (either true or apparent) in its options menu.

As I mentioned, Concept does both. I haven't used Placidus in so long that I don't remember whether he accounts for parallax (I thought he did), and i do not remember it accounting for secondary motion.

- Ed

19
Graham Fox wrote:...
I can't get Concept to install under Vista, even when specifying to install with XP, W98 or W95 parameters and trying various other options. Something about full-screeen mode not being allowed. Never mind for now....
Graham,

This is why I'd eventually like to get its algorithms into my program, but I don't know whether I'll ever have the time.

The trick to using Concept on XP or Vista is to install Dosbox (google it). Once you've installed it, you should be able to run Concept under it, though you may need to fiddle a bit with the key mappings. If you do, PM me, and I can send you the mapping and startup files I use under XP. (Had to uninstall Vista on the machine I had it on, but I think the files will be the same).

20
Martin Gansten wrote:... The one at 29 did give a major result (incidentally, that was the Moon rising, with parallax and secondary motion), but there have been many other events, some far more important, without any angular hit.

I absolutely agree that transits ans directions/progressions (of whatever kind) are often used indiscriminately, to justify whatever happens to coincide more or less in time. In my opinion, a more useful approach is to determine the most important planets/points (overall, or for a particular area of life) from the natal chart, and to keep track of their directions.
I agree with this. Often it is not angle contacts, but activation of natal planetary configurations with "high potential" or reflections around the angles. You have to sift when predicting. Looking at a lot of charts for notable events gives a feel for what you're looking for.

- Ed

21
Ed wrote
haven't used Placidus in so long that I don't remember whether he accounts for parallax (I thought he did), and i do not remember it accounting for secondary motion.
Placidus doesn't use parallax or have a parallax option. My version (NK 4.1, copyright Dec 2000) doesn't offer any secndary motion option, but Martin mentions it having a secondary motion option for moon, so maybe he has a later version.

You can force Placidus (or any other program which offers custom keys) to take account of secondary motion by incorporating it into the key. For example, my natal moon has a secondary motion of 14?32'/day = 14.53? = 0.04036? per degree of earth's rotation (1/360 x 14.53). So for the moon's directions, if (secondary motion aside) I was using Ptolemy's key, I could use a key of 1.04036? = 1 year, or 1?=0.9612 years (that would be the coefficient to use in Placidus, for directions of the moon only).
In the event, since I also want to use parallax, this is not actually very helpful with Placidus...

Graham

22
Graham Fox wrote:Placidus doesn't use parallax or have a parallax option. My version (NK 4.1, copyright Dec 2000) doesn't offer any secndary motion option, but Martin mentions it having a secondary motion option for moon, so maybe he has a later version.
I do (4.91). The Customer Setup window includes the option 'Add Real Time Moon as Promissor', but without parallax, as you say. Also, in my opinion secondary motion should be taken into account even for the significator, as it will affect the semi-arc.

23
Hi Martin
You write:
Also, in my opinion secondary motion should be taken into account even for the significator, as it will affect the semi-arc.
This for interplanetaries, of course, as horizon and zenith do not have secondary motion. But surely this destroys the analogy with transits which you made earlier:
Leaving parallels aside for the moment, interplanetary directions are like transits: one planet (or its aspect) arriving at the place previously occupied by another.
Graham

24
Hi Graham,
You write:
Also, in my opinion secondary motion should be taken into account even for the significator, as it will affect the semi-arc.
This for interplanetaries, of course, as horizon and zenith do not have secondary motion.
Correct.
But surely this destroys the analogy with transits which you made earlier:
Leaving parallels aside for the moment, interplanetary directions are like transits: one planet (or its aspect) arriving at the place previously occupied by another.
I don't see why. It is just a matter of defining the 'place' in question, which we do (following Ptolemy) from the position of the significator in its own semi-arc. Assuming for simplicity's sake that the Moon as significator is on the ecliptic, at, let us say, 12? Aries in the 10th house, the question is: do we measure the semi-arc of 12? Aries or that of the Moon (which perhaps rose at 9? Aries, and will culminate at 13? Aries)? Irrespective of which model we choose, the promissor will be considered conjunct the Moon when it reaches the same point in its own semi-arc.

26
Petr wrote:Other trick to using Concept on XP or Vista is install VMwareWork station, in him system W98,in which Concept work.Calculation is much faster.Dosbox is slow.
Good tip (if one can find a win 98 install disk). Thanks!

27
Hello again Martin
Maybe I haven't understood something here, but aren't you talking about zodiacal primaries and not strict Placidian mundo ones, when you say:
Assuming for simplicity's sake that the Moon as significator is on the ecliptic, at, let us say, 12? Aries in the 10th house, the question is: do we measure the semi-arc of 12? Aries or that of the Moon (which perhaps rose at 9? Aries, and will culminate at 13? Aries)?
Kolev defines as a mundo primary as "to bring the Promissor to the same proportional position in regards to the horizon and the meridian (same mundo position) as the one which the Significator had at the birth moment."
So isn't it this mundo position, the azimuth and altitude (of the significator, i.e. the factor which is being directed towards, since definitions of significator/promissor sometimes seem to be the opposite of Kolev's) which we must measure to (or to a parallel thereof)? In the example you give, this was the mundo position at which the moon found itself at birth, and not the moon's later position, and certainly not 12? Aries, which I don't think has anything to do with it, unless we're talking about zodiacal directions (Kolev: "Here we direct the ecliptical projections of the planets...").
As you've worked on this quite a bit, I'd be interested to know which key you find most efficient for mundo directions (I've so far found Ptolemy/1?=1yr seems best, but natal solar rate also sometimes seems good. Naibod less so).
Thanks for any views.
Graham