Re: Ptolemaic aspects exclusive of house type

16
jorge wrote:This discussion reminds me of something that always struck me as weird.
Astrologers use latitude to find the Ascendant, but then use only longitude for MC, which doesnt make sense.
Here I believe you must be thinking of geographical longitude/latitude, not celestial longitude/latitude. Geographical latitude corresponds to declination from the celestial equator.

At any given moment in time, all places (in the same hemisphere, and not within the polar circles) with the same geographical longitude will share the same MC, irrespective of their geographical latitude. This is because they are located on the same meridian (the circle passing from the North Pole to the South Pole through a given geographical longitude), and the MC is the point where the meridian intersects the ecliptic above the horizon. So the MC degree will be the same, but it will be at different altitudes (height above the horizon) for different geographical latitudes.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

17
Mark wrote:Martin Gansten wrote:
The point is that it is perfectly possible to base domification and directions on different principles.
Yes. In addition I think its perfectly possible to use placidean mundane aspects as a self standing technique without feeling the need to adopt placidus houses for natal work. I personally, use whole sign houses for nativities but still find mundane aspects by proportional semi-arcs useful. As this is a non-zodiacal technique it can be equally applied by tropical and sidereal astrologers. If I am reading him correctly the western siderealist Ken Bowser seems to advocate a form of mundane aspects based on right ascension: http://www.westernsiderealastrology.com ... _mundo.pdf Mark
http://www.astrocartographyinfo.com/Ast ... Chart.html
Thanks Martin this site by Steve Byers claims to calculate charts with right ascension but the chart for Rob Hand looks different from the one in your link