Hi James,

Thanks. I think my version of SF is a bit older than yours but I will check that out. I was actually fishing around for other software options too though. Does Kepler do this?

Regarding the history of Solar Arcs we already had an excellent thread devoted to that. Some really great contributions in there if you read it all. Actually, I just realised I forgot to mention Simmonite as another British populariser of this in the 19th century. However, I still think Kepler may have been doing something very similar to solar arcs.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2817

Mark

This thread has certainly been very active since yesterday!

james_m wrote:here is an overview from noel tyls book intro on solar arcs that you might find interesting[...]

I have that book, and I really have to warn against believing anything Tyl says about primary directions (which he doesn't understand, or at least didn't at the time of writing that book) or about the history of astrology (on which he seems singularly ill-informed).

James: the point about the angles is that the planets have two kinds of motion (primary and secondary), the angles only one (primary). As the earth rotates around its axis, the angles appear to move around the zodiac (or rather, the zodiac across the angles), and the planets appear to rise, culminate, set, etc. This is the basis of primary directions. But the planets also have their own, much slower motion along the zodiac (in the opposite direction of the primary motion), and this is the basis of secondary directions (which are now called secondary progressions).

Hello

Interesting to read these comments on these important, but often misused/misunderstood techniques...

Re: James, as far as that Tyl quote, I can't even start to comment on its distortions.

Yes, using Primary Directions is not an easy technique (compared to Solar Arcs), not the least of which is requiring a super-accurate birthtime. Still, anyone that says that they don't work with great precision is just plain wrong.

Example:
I've listed 15 events and 30 connected Primary Directions. The combined orb of all of these Primary Directions is 1? 47' or an average orb of 0? 3' of arc.

I've examined the Solar Arcs for these events and not only do they not get you "in the ballpark" (in terms of appropriate aspects and ORB), they don't get you close to the state containing the city containing the ballpark. I don't wish to make the discussion more polemic...the Solar Arcs vs. Primary Directions initiation of the thread has already established the theme of contrast and compare.

All my data is available on request for those who would care to do a similar study (using Solar Arcs) to what I have done (using Topocentric Primary Directions).

Peace

James

As for the Secondary Progressions (with angles progressed by Sun's movement in Right Ascension), they also work very, very well.

Some examples from another chart (rectified 7 seconds from Birth Certificate time)...

Death of Great Grandfather, Sun conjunct Pluto 7'

Death of other Great Grandfather, Moon conjunct 8th 7'

Death of Great Grandmother, 8th conjunct Venus 2'

Birth of Sister, Mercury sesquisquare 3rd 3'

Death of Grandmother, IC sesquisquare Saturn 1'

Death of Grandfather, MC square Pluto 2'

Birth of Son, 5th sesquisquare Moon 5'

Marriage, Moon conjunct Sun 7'

Death of Father, Sun trine Saturn 1'

The average orb of these very appropriately symbolized progressions is less than 0? 4'.

Re: Solar Arcs

...

Peace

James

Mark wrote: ''Quotidian? comes from the Latin word for ?daily? and refers to the daily motion of the Midheaven. In a 24-hour period, the Midheaven doesn?t move just 1 degree; it moves 360 degrees. In other words, during the day/year of the progressed chart, the houses will have made a complete cycle just as they do in real time. While the planets don?t move any faster in a Quotidian Secondary Progressed chart, they do change houses and contact the house cusps, and this is could presumably pick up significant events.

My current Solar Fire software doesn't seem to calculate Quotidian secondary progressions. Any other suggestions on software that does? I would really like to try these out!

Mark

The key idea that changed my perspective on progressions and direction (and profections) was that all of these methods are symbolic time methods based on correlating astrological frames of reference. Once that sinks in, you realize that the emphasis of the method is determination of an earlier time that says something about a transit time in the native's life. Chart construction should then be done as usual, though we might compare different kinds of coordinates (eg mundane vs zodiacal) depending on their velocity for a given kind of symbolic time.

For example, a secondary progression is a correlation between earth and solar frames of reference. The progressed time could be determined by measuring the celestial longitude of the sun between radix and transit, then moving the radix RAMC the same number of degrees in RA, giving the LST of the progressed time at the radix location, and so the UTC and date. Then draw the secondary progressed chart for that UTC and the location of the native at the progressed time.

A similar approach can be used for tertiary (Moon/Earth) and minor progressions (Sun/Moon).

Then it get interesting. A kind of primary direction can be calculated by a double application of the secondary progression method: move the natal RAMC the same number of degrees as the secondary progressed sun to determine a "directed" time. Calculate a chart normally, and compare either mundane or the mundane projections of the zodiacal positions to those of the radix.

This is also called a primary progressed chart.

A similar approach applying two different pairs of reference frames give an approximation to the usual profections.

This approach does not give results exactly coinciding with the various conventional methods, but the results are within the range of variation of them. And there is a rather nice logic to it.

As far as SF is concerned, I do not have it, but I thought someone said you could do the quotidian progression of the angles with it. Janus 4 supports doing so.

- Ed

mark,

thanks for the link to the other thread on solar arc directions and history... i found it didn't really get the answer in a definitive sense, but i enjoyed reading the thread... andrews comments were interesting.. i found it interesting his thinking antisica was more valuable for use in predictive chart reading then the 45 degree aspect... i was just looking at dr petoits chart earlier today - jan 17 1897 auxerre france 2:51am 21 scorpio ascendant.. i find the 45/135 aspect set extremely useful and yes they were popularized by ebertin and his rather large influence on a number of astrologers today.. if you look at this doctor/murderer from france who was beheaded in 1946 i believe, you will note the stationary mars closely conj pluto in a 135 to his natal sun all fairly close... i suppose one could get at the darkness to the chart a few ways, but avoiding the use of 45 or 135 is just not something i would do... on the other hand, i respect those who feel the need to simplify all the data by lessening the number of aspects they use..

at any rate, i found the the thread worthwhile reading so thanks for sharing it.

martin,

thanks for your comments... both you and ed seem to want to take tyl to task for his comments.. that is fine! i have no attachment but only pointed them out as i thought he might have said something useful to offer in getting at the basis for the use of solar arc directions... i thought the comment about the connection of sepharial to bonatis deserved some consideration and wondered if bonatis at any point discusses what sepharial seems to have used - a type of solar arc direction by the sound of it according to the data in tyls forward to his book - solar arcs, which is down near the bottom of what i shared.. this is why i asked if someone was familiar with bonatis work if they could comment at the top.. at any rate it seems the name tyl threw the both of you off!

i do understand the basis of the movement of the angles - clockwise movement as opposed to the movement of planets along the ecliptic but thank you for articulating this as it emphasizes something i want to talk about.. it seems one issue of the use of these different techniques primary verses solar arc has to do with the fact one is based on a real type of motion, as opposed to a symbolic one that is not based on anything directly connected to the movements, other then the movement of the sun... this i understand, but don't hold a strong position on philosophically.. i see the difference, but from my point of view i want to value what works from a predictive point, as opposed to a basis in nature that seems coherent.. maybe i haven't articulated that quite right, but it gets at what i am putting at the top of my priority for use of anything in astrology..

i continue to see the use of the word progression and direction being interchanged in a way that seems to create some confusion over these terms.. secondary progressions aren't the same as solar arc directions, but it seems the 2 systems get lumped into the same box as progressions or directions.. perhaps i am misunderstanding how some folks use these terms and stuck in the way i am used to using them.. thanks for your comments either way and by the way - i am enjoying your book on primary directions.. it is clearly laid out and i like that!

atlantean,

thanks for your comments.. i would just like to comment on this from your post "Still, anyone that says that they don't work with great precision is just plain wrong." if you read the link that ed f provided to the connections article by rumun kolov page 56 to the end you will note that lilly seems to uses primary directions in a window of time that is much wider then the manner if which you appear to be using the primary direction data... you might enjoy reading that article that ed f left.. here is the link to it again. http://issuu.com/considerations/docs/14-1

Right, but Lilly used Regiomontanus based directions, while Atlantean is using Topocentric - they deviate quite a bit.

As far as progression vs direction, the common usage seems to be:

direction - natal planetary positions are held static
progression - they're not

I rather prefer Svarogich's approach that I outlined in my previous message:

1. progression - correlation of two frames of reference
2. direction - double application of a single such correlation
3. profection - sequential application of two different pairs of such correlations.

But I'm guessing that's not going to catch on

- Ed

james_m wrote:
to talk about directing a planet, but not the angles baffles me.. perhaps there is some rationale for moving some of the points in the chart but not others, so i am curious if someone could articulate this for me... let me add, that i don't ask this based on what was done in the past, so much as understanding the rationale behind it.. thanks!

Placidus says that a planet cannot move to an angle or a cusp "in zodiac" because "the zodiac is not the way of the stars to angles", but a planet can move to an angle or a cusp "in mundo", according a portion of its semiarc.

If you don't have already done, but Martin Gansten's book "Primary Directions".

margherita

ed - i like Svarogich's approach as well.. it is clear...

topocentric verses regiomontanus was discussed in that 17 page primary direction thread i read recently...doing primary directions topocentric makes more sense to me.. however, i don't care for the idea of directing to house cusps and as i recall margerhita mentioned that the older astrologers didn't actually do this anyway... what do you think?

margerhiita

was placidus overturning the way things had been done before him? i have martin ganstens book and i am trying to digest it in a slow fashion so as to understand the astronomy behind the astrology as best i can.. periodically i am forced into understanding the astronomical mechanics behind these different predictive tools that astrologers use, but i typically forget what they are based on, not long after reading the details of it.. i do retain some info to memory, but not a lot with regard to the astronomy of it..
the software has dumbed me down..

I'm pretty sure Martin does make that observation about Placidus. On the other hand, I don't believe that older/traditional is necessarily better.

- Ed

james_m wrote: ]margerhiita

was placidus overturning the way things had been done before him?

He says no, and I believe less that it is generally declared in the English speaking traditional world, for example it's obvious that Placidus house system is shaped on Ptolemy chapter on directions, but I agree with Martin that part of his teachings are not traditional.

In every case I'm not exactly a Placidus adept.

i have martin ganstens book and i am trying to digest it in a slow fashion so as to understand the astronomy behind the astrology as best i can.. periodically i am forced into understanding the astronomical mechanics behind these different predictive tools that astrologers use, but i typically forget what they are based on, not long after reading the details of it.. i do retain some info to memory, but not a lot with regard to the astronomy of it..
the software has dumbed me down.

That's one one of favorite books, but obviously the reader cannot understand everything after the first reading.

Anyway I have my idea that astronomy is not so important, I mean what it is really important is to understand the mathematical method , and then you will never forget.

Astronomy is more difficult to visualize, true, but the practical method is very easy

margherita

james_m wrote:was placidus overturning the way things had been done before him?

He restored some things (mainly the semi-arc method of direction, which had been largely abandoned in favour of the position-circle method) and invented others (such as his mundane aspects and secondary directions). His house system had been in use earlier; the earliest evidence of which I am aware dates to the 12th century (certainly not to Ptolemy's time).