skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
A Correct Prediction: the NYC buiding strike, 1991
by Robert E. Zoller
Book II of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Compiled by Deborah Houlding
Astrology and Cosmology in Early China: Conforming Earth to Heaven, by David W. Pankenier
Reviewed by Gill Zukovskis

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Ptolemaic aspects exclusive of house type
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
varuna2



Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 323
Location: Lemuria

Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:28 pm    Post subject: Ptolemaic aspects exclusive of house type Reply with quote

delete

Last edited by varuna2 on Sat May 04, 2013 6:18 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1286
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:24 am    Post subject: Re: Ptolemaic aspects exclusive of house type Reply with quote

varuna2 wrote:


Is this adjustment of Ptolemaic aspects to match the ratio of both the size of, and placement within, a house in an unequal house system, a method of delineation used by those who use unequal houses?


For what I understood of your example- I'm not sure I caught it, you are talking about mundane aspects.

In this case aspects are not taken by longitude but in respect to the Placidian house. Two planets which are in the middle of the house, the one in the first and the other in the third are in sextile whatever longitude they have.

Take care that in mundane aspects planets keep their latitude, they are not projected on the ecliptic. Surely Martin Gansten can say more,
margherita
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.net
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 3954
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Varuna 2 wrote:
Quote:
For those who use Ptolemaic aspects, do you use them irrespective of the house type?


I would say this is more a question about our attitude to out of sign aspects (and the orbs used) or mundane aspects than really what house system is utilised. In terms of out of sign aspects some astrolgers use these and others dont. I think there are three basic approaches to aspects in western traditional astrology:

1 By whole sign ptolemaic relationship
2 By degree only (allowing out of sign aspects)
3 By mundane aspect.

1 By whole sign ptolemaic relationship

I'm afraid I find your example a little confusing. But lets assume we have Mars at 28 Aries and Saturn at say 28 Cancer. Astrologers using both WS and quadrant houses would find a zodiacal square here regardless of house system.

2 By degree only (allowing out of sign aspects)

However, say we have the Moon at 29 Aquarius and the Sun at 2 Scorpio. In terms of whole signs these planets are in square. However, by degrees we have an out of sign trine between the Moon and Sun here. Many western astrologers would still count such an out of sign aspect.

There may be some support for out of sign aspects in ancient astrology. They certainly considered conjunctions across the sign boundary within 3 degrees. Some may also have considered other aspects across sign boundary too.

Otherwise why does the 1st century CE Roman astrologer Manilius state the following?

Quote:
"And though a man compute a fourth sign from a fourth, the degrees in themselves will cause the wreck of a whole sign. It is therefore not enough to count trigons by signs or to expect a true square from signs at intervals at four". Astronomica, Manilius (2.305-340)


3 By mundane aspect.

In other words allowing for the fact that the tropical signs rise at different times. In general terms they can be divided into signs of long or short ascension. Ptolemy himself mentions this issue in regards to aspects:

Quote:
“And sometimes, also, among the signs that ascend slowly the sextile aspect destroys, when it is afflicted, and again among the signs that ascend rapidly, the trine”. Claudius Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos (p. 283, Loeb edition)


Hence Ptolemy is clearly suggesting with two planets in signs of long (or slow) ascension a sextile aspect is effectively 'stretched' and operates more like a square while in signs of short (or fast) ascension a trine is effectively 'shrunk' and therefore operates more like a square.

The point is about the nature of the tropical signs themselves not the house system utilised.

Here is more information on the subject:

http://www.projecthindsight.com/images/TablesPDFs/Tb2-AscensionTimes.pdf

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1742

http://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/when-is-a-trine-not-a-trine/

Mark
_________________
''Man is troubled not by events, but by the meaning he gives them"

Epictetus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ed F



Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 301
Location: Ipswich, MA USA

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:

The point is about the nature of the tropical signs themselves not the house system utilised.
Mark


Perhaps your statement is true if one only considers mundane aspects in the context of the ascension times of signs. But mundane aspects can be determined by degree with no reference whatsoever to ecliptic coordinates. The geometry of the house system used (provided is has a concept of mundane position) will be the determining factor.

Unless you don't believe in aspects based only on degree relationships, and require sign relationships for them.

- Ed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1286
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ed F wrote:
The geometry of the house system used (provided is has a concept of mundane position) will be the determining factor.

Ed


I believe this too.
In order to say that a planet is in the middle of a house as mentioned by Varuna, we should say which house we are talking about.

margherita
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.net
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 3954
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ed F wrote:
Quote:
Perhaps your statement is true if one only considers mundane aspects in the context of the ascension times of signs.


Yes I am not aware there is any evidence of any other method but ascensions in ancient and medieval astrology. Of course supporters of Placidus houses usually point out that their semi-arcs can be used to derive mundane positions of planets. Due to the similarity to Ptolemy's system of primary directions its often argued he might have advocated this approach to aspects but the evidence seems scant to support this. As I understand it Placido De Tito was the first to propose Ptolemy's proportional semi-arcs as a system to calculate mundane aspects while Maginus proposed aspects in right ascension.

A previous thread picked this issue up and Martin Gansten's comments are very informative.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=30107&highlight=&sid=a9c5a26ec7c74e80a12f02a4a8b6b577

Ed F wrote:
Quote:
But mundane aspects can be determined by degree with no reference whatsoever to ecliptic coordinates.


I concede my comment was misleading since late renaissance and modern astrologers have developed other methods of calculating mundane aspects that are non-zodiacal and indeed non-ecliptical.

Still irrespective of house system used there appears to be only three methods of calculating mundane aspects:

a) ascensional rising times
b) proportional semi-arcs
c) positions by right ascension

Are there others?

Ed F wrote:
Quote:
The geometry of the house system used (provided is has a concept of mundane position) will be the determining factor.


So what house systems are we actually referring to?

I assume you mean time based house systems utilising semi-arcs such as Placidus, Alcabitius and Koch?

Mark
_________________
''Man is troubled not by events, but by the meaning he gives them"

Epictetus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1286
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
Of course supporters of Placidus houses usually point out that their semi-arcs can be used to derive mundane positions of planets. Due to the similarity to Ptolemy's system of primary directions its often argued he might have advocated this approach to aspects but the evidence seems scant to support this.


It's obvious that Placido built his house system on Tetr, III, 11. If Ptolemy used or not Placidean houses is not so important, but it's true that semiarc directions fit very well with Placidean houses, because if I should direct a planet by hand (without using a software) I should always know where is that planet in the Placidian house.

I know that Martin says that directions are not connected with house system, and it is true in theory, but in practice directing Regiomontanus and using Placidus and viceversa it makes no sense

Quote:

Still irrespective of house system used there appears to be only three methods of calculating mundane aspects:

a) ascensional rising times
b) proportional semi-arcs
c) positions by right ascension


It was Varuna who mentioned the position of a planet in a house, and his example evidently fits with the Placidian mundane aspect where aspects are taken according the houses (still Placidian mundane aspects have latitude).

Try to cast the chart with Morinus and you will see that zodiacal directions form the aspect by longitude (even when they have latitude- at least I use the significator with its latitude), but not the mundane aspects, they form the aspect in the (Placidean) house, not by longitude

Try and let me know,
margherita
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.net
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
varuna2



Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 323
Location: Lemuria

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

delete

Last edited by varuna2 on Sat May 04, 2013 6:19 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 962
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

margherita wrote:
I know that Martin says that directions are not connected with house system, and it is true in theory, but in practice directing Regiomontanus and using Placidus and viceversa it makes no sense.

Whyever not?

Throughout the Middle Ages most astrologers seem to have used semi-arc ('Placidean') directions and Alcabitius houses. It appears to have made sense to them. (I know your example said Regiomantanus, not Alcabitius, but I don't know whether, historically, the Regiomontanus/'rational' house system was ever used together with semi-arc directions. The point is that it is perfectly possible to base domification and directions on different principles.)
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 3954
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Varuna 2 wrote:
Quote:
Margherita posted again mentioning the Placidian use of mundane aspects, which I will assume to be valid with Polich-Page as well.


Good question. We clearly need Ed's or Martin's input on this. Smile

Although the house system of Polich-Page (Topocentric) yields very similar results to Placidus (usually about 1 degree difference) and is described as a time based house system I understand the mathematical differences are quite fundamental. Indeed I have seen Topocentric described as incorporating a time, space and equatorial element. Confused

http://www.levante.org/domification/topocentre1.html

I am afraid the maths is way beyond my limited ability.

Mark
_________________
''Man is troubled not by events, but by the meaning he gives them"

Epictetus


Last edited by Mark on Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:34 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 962
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Varuna: the confusion stems from the non-rigorous use of the term 'mundane aspect' to signify any type of angle not calculated in the ecliptic. As Mark pointed out, there are several varieties, including angles in right ascension, oblique ascension and proportional semi-arcs. Historically speaking, the term 'mundane aspect' is most properly used of the semi-arc variety, devised by Placidus. (There are also theoretical systems of 'mundane aspects' formulated in analogy with house systems other than the Placidean, but never used historically, to my knowledge.)
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 3954
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin Gansten wrote:
Quote:
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/articles/aspects_in_mundo.pdf

Mark
_________________
''Man is troubled not by events, but by the meaning he gives them"

Epictetus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
varuna2



Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 323
Location: Lemuria

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

delete

Last edited by varuna2 on Sat May 04, 2013 6:19 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1286
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin Gansten wrote:

Throughout the Middle Ages most astrologers seem to have used semi-arc ('Placidean') directions and Alcabitius houses. It appears to have made sense to them. (I know your example said Regiomantanus, not Alcabitius,


Alcabitius is not the same as Regiomontanus, you know better than me


Quote:
but I don't know whether, historically, the Regiomontanus/'rational' house system was ever used together with semi-arc directions. The point is that it is perfectly possible to base domification and directions on different principles.)


But you say this because in directing by hand you don't highlight the position of the planet in the quadrant, you work with meridian distances (page 153 of your wonderful book). I use another method, I use positions in the quadrant, so I always know where is in a planet in respect to the Placidian house, and in which Placidian house the planet is.

Then obviously I can always use Regiomontanus houses, but then I would lose the information about the position of the planet.

margherita
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.net
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jorge



Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 124

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Ptolemaic aspects exclusive of house type Reply with quote

margherita wrote:
varuna2 wrote:


Is this adjustment of Ptolemaic aspects to match the ratio of both the size of, and placement within, a house in an unequal house system, a method of delineation used by those who use unequal houses?


For what I understood of your example- I'm not sure I caught it, you are talking about mundane aspects.

In this case aspects are not taken by longitude but in respect to the Placidian house. Two planets which are in the middle of the house, the one in the first and the other in the third are in sextile whatever longitude they have.

Take care that in mundane aspects planets keep their latitude, they are not projected on the ecliptic. Surely Martin Gansten can say more,
margherita


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.
At noon a planet is high in the sky,but not exactly overhead.It is normally southwards, indicating that it is not at the MC at your latitude but further south.
Yet Astrologers seem to ignore this fact. Eith you use Lat/Long for both or Longitude for both ignoring Latitude

My two cents
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated