Martin Gansten wrote: Wed Apr 16, 2025 1:18 pm Talking about tones, it's almost amusing (but not quite) to note how, like the Monty Python butcher, yours to me is alternately rude and fawning depending on whether you want something from me or not. I'll just correct you on a few factual points:

You're quite right to call attention to tone—it's a serious matter, and I appreciate your directness on the point. Upon reflection, I can well imagine that my own remarks may have oscillated between the overly sharp and the faintly sycophantic, depending on the moment. I assure you, this wasn’t calculated—though I concede it might have given that impression.

As to the substance of our exchange, I confess I bristled at the remark that “astrologers with any real knowledge of directions have been very thin on the ground. But as we all know, lack of knowledge is no barrier to expressing one's opinions.” It struck me, perhaps too acutely, as a sweeping aside of anyone who dares to approach primary directions without the appropriate pedigree. It felt less like an invitation to discussion than a polite ushering of dissenters toward the exit. Still, I can also see that I may have taken it more personally than the occasion required. These are the kinds of topics that stir the blood, especially among those who care deeply about them—as clearly, you do.

And let me say, without any irony, that I have the highest regard for your scholarship. Your grasp of the tradition is formidable, your references impeccable, and your command of the subject enviable. However—and I say this with no malice—I do find the tone in which your learning is sometimes wielded a bit more flint than velvet. It’s a curious thing: I value the knowledge enormously, but the delivery can feel, to put it delicately, like debating under a hailstorm. Perhaps we simply occupy different poles of temperament. But that in no way diminishes the admiration I have for the intellectual heft you bring to the conversation.

In short, if you're open to it, I’d very much like to reset the tone—less bluster, more collegial armchair-and-teacup discussion.

Thank you - I appreciate your understanding

jane

thanks for sharing your views on my question.. i think this movement of the sun - approx 1 degree per day, is definitely a part of the symbolism used here.. if one thinks of astrology as a combination of different elements - astronomy, math and symbolism growing out of observation, then this idea could be applied a few different ways, including horary example i gave.. i am reminded of geoffrey cornelius book 'the moment of astrology' which focuses on the idea of astrology being a form of divination.. his book which i highly recommend, gives one example of wrong data producing the ''right'' answer - that is - off the wrong chart.. something transcends and is at work but, what is it? i don't think we will ever know. i don't think of astrology as some hard science, so much as a symbolic language that will come out differently depending on who is involved in the process.

deb

relationships develop on skyscript based on past interactions.. looking at one thread doesn't give a full picture..

i think of skyscript as a public forum for those interested in astrology to share and converse on the topic.. i don't think of it as a dogmatic, rigid ideological system where little to nothing is questioned or challenged.. if astrology is supposed to be treated like a religion where you either believe or don't, or have to hold a particular set of beliefs without question, then i don't share that viewpoint.. my passing comments on ingress charts are based on my own experience working with them.. this is not to say someone else can't find meaning and relevance in them.. it means i haven't.. not everyone is going to go about astrology the same way.. if we disallow any challenge to orthodox viewpoints, then i consider it a stifling environment, the opposite of what i think as a community space designed for 'open' discussion.. i think this ''tradition'' is or soon will be dead in the water in an atmosphere like this.. if certain approaches to astrology are considered by some to be more esteemed then others, i can see how one could be put off ('insulted') by any challenge to these same esteemed or valued views.. it strikes me as more rigid orthodoxy - dogma.. some of my views may be seen as 'blasphemous' . if one is looking for a follower to idealize a certain type of 'astrology' without ever challenging or questioning any of it - i'm not a good person for the role as i am sure you've already noted..

Primary Directions are similar to looking at transits but stationing. They are to be used in conjunction with transits, Solar Returns, Profections and chronocators.
In 2014, I broke my ankle. By secondary progressions, the Moon had just gone over my natal Mars. But by primary directions, Saturn had reached Mars.

From what I have seen, PD survived in the Latin world (French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian) in the 20th century.

Here is a short resume of some books that have influenced my understanding of Primary Directions.
"In 'Traité Pratique d'Astrologie,' André Barbault gives two examples that give an idea of ​​the importance of primary directions.
- Louis XIV was proclaimed King when the MC was in conjunction with the Sun; he was crowned when the Ascendant was in conjunction with Jupiter.
- Louis XVI was proclaimed King when the MC was in conjunction with the Sun; he was crowned when the Ascendant was in conjunction with Jupiter.
- The French Revolution began when the MC was in opposition to Saturn and was executed when the Ascendant was in square with Saturn."
Jean Marie Michiels, https://www.astrocours.be/les-directions-primaires/
--------
"Les directions primaires simplifiées", Henri J. Gouchon (1977) from his 'Dictionnaire Astrologique' (1937).
Using the chart of Raymond Poincaré, former president of the Republic, he outlines the PD of his life.

"Les Directions en astrologie", Paul Choisnard (1957)
He explains the method of Ptolemy (IV,10) tr. Nicolas Bourdin. At the end of his book, he provides a quick way to calculate PD without latitude (Placidus).

"La date des événements", Georges Muchery (1974)
"La recherche de l'époque des événements et leur interprétation", Georges Muchery (1975)
Many tables for the calculations and a whole chapter on the interpretations of directions.

"La pratique des Directions primaires", Danièle Jay (1993)
"Le Ciel en mouvement", Danièle Jay (2006), foreword by Giuseppe Bezza
The interest of these 2 books lies in the integration of the Parts, calculated In Mundo of which she says that they are stronger than in Zodiaco and the use of the Fixed Stars integrated in the interpretation of the directions. Using the InMundo position of some planets, I have found that it changes the midpoint structure of a natal chart and revealing in some way. Have a look at your own chart.

In the English world, one can find references from Sepharial, Ruman Kolev, Benjamin Dykes, Bob Makransky, Deborah Houlding, Anthony Louis and Martin Gansten just to name a few.
Apologize if I missed some references but these are the ones under my radar. A very partial point of view but I just wanted to provide a reference to the Latin world and how it survived in the 20th century.
---------------
An example here with Napoleon
"An Excellent Son of Saturn", Mario Costantino (2011)
https://www.astrologiaclassica.it/wordp ... ostantino/

And for those who want to explore the calculations
Sylvia de Ayala free calculation of Primary Directions (Placidus)
https://carta-natal.es/direcciones-primarias.php
Software Aureas
Software Planetdance - Jean Cremers
Software Morinus

Ouranos

AJ wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 9:16 pm In short, if you're open to it, I’d very much like to reset the tone—less bluster, more collegial armchair-and-teacup discussion.

Agreed. I appreciate the olive branch.

What tends to get my goat is not disrespect of me personally (I don't care all that much), but a lack of regard for truth, facts and knowledge. This can sometimes masquerade as tolerance or keeping an open mind or respecting everyone's right to an opinion, but calling something an opinion doesn't automatically put it on an equal footing with everyone else's 'opinion'. One of the great and all-too-common abuses of postmodernist thinking is the sort of lazy relativism/scepticism that says, in effect, that since no statement can ever be entirely free of subjectivity, everything basically has the same probability value, and we may as well just believe and say whatever we feel like, and painstaking research and scholarship don't matter. Please note that I am not accusing you personally of this, but that is the attitude that often provokes me into asperity.

Sometimes people seem to think that basing one's opinions and arguments on facts should only be required in an academic context, but I disagree: I think it's a matter of intellectual honesty and moral integrity for everyone, and also a mark of true respect for the people one is conversing with: what right have I to waste everyone's time by talking through my hat and perhaps making them believe things that aren't true?

Also, context matters. Here we are in the Traditional forum of Skyscript, all of us (I hope) by free will. If anyone thinks that the concept of traditional astrology as a whole, and/or some particular aspect of traditional practice (however we want to define that), such as primary directions, are bunk, and they really really want to tell people so (why?) — well, there is always the General forum for that, not to mention any number of astrology groups on social media platforms. In that sense, yes, I'd like to usher some people towards the exit, if not into the street, then at least into an adjoining room. Of course, for some, the fun is all in stirring up trouble by deliberately choosing the wrong place to air their views. Those are the sort of people we usually call trolls. (Again, not meaning you.)

In any case, I'm actually happy to discuss the changing views on primary directions over the past few centuries, both positive and negative, and especially including sources in French and other Romance languages as mentioned by Ouranos, since those are generally outside my purview, and I like learning new things.

James

I have kept this forum online for over 20 years and know that as soon as the policies cease to matter, the whole thing will fold. So please don’t miss the point of my reminder that respect for the subject as a whole and courteous consideration of other members is a fundamental requirement of anyone’s membership. If I start needing to remind members about this, it’s a friendly warning that policies are going to be enforced more robustly for a while, to ensure they are not being ignored or forgotten.

This is a moderation comment and not an invitation for discussion on the policies, BTW. Let's now keep this thread focussed on its discussion point.

Thank you, Martin, for the thoughtful response—and yes, I take your points in the spirit of intellectual clarity and integrity in which I believe they’re meant.

That said, I’d like to gently push back on a couple of points on your reply quoted below—not to sow discord, but in the spirit of healthy discourse, which can include being devil’s advocate, not to provoke for its own sake, but to sharpen the edge of understanding for all present.

You caution against “lazy relativism,” and I fully agree that postmodern excess can sometimes reduce everything to mush. However, I think we must be careful not to go too far in the other direction, where the invocation of “facts” or “scholarship” becomes a cudgel, consciously or not. While rigorous research is essential, traditional astrology itself lives in a rather curious space—it is a domain where history, metaphysics, interpretive art, and craft intermingle. Much of what we work with is drawn from deeply subjective streams of tradition, with frequent contradictions between authors, schools, and periods. In such an environment, disagreement—sometimes lively, sometimes iconoclastic—isn’t just inevitable; it’s necessary. It’s how systems are tested, adapted, and kept alive.

Moreover, the suggestion that those with critical or skeptical perspectives should "use the General forum" or be directed to an “adjoining room” risks creating an echo chamber, which ultimately serves no one—not the tradition, not the practitioners, nor even the curious readers who benefit from hearing multiple sides tested in open dialogue. If someone comes in swinging, yes, tone matters. But if they come in with sincere questions or challenges, even uncomfortable ones, then dismissing them too quickly does more harm than good. After all, didn’t some of the most fruitful advances in astrological theory begin as inconvenient questions?

To me, respect for truth includes the humility to recognize that others, even critics, may help uncover it—and that truth often emerges more clearly in conversation than proclamation. So while we both value intellectual integrity, I would add that a generous tolerance for dissent—provided it’s honest and engaged—is also part of that same integrity.

Be Well.

Martin Gansten wrote: Sun Apr 20, 2025 7:34 pm

AJ wrote: Fri Apr 18, 2025 9:16 pm In short, if you're open to it, I’d very much like to reset the tone—less bluster, more collegial armchair-and-teacup discussion.

Agreed. I appreciate the olive branch.

What tends to get my goat is not disrespect of me personally (I don't care all that much), but a lack of regard for truth, facts and knowledge. This can sometimes masquerade as tolerance or keeping an open mind or respecting everyone's right to an opinion, but calling something an opinion doesn't automatically put it on an equal footing with everyone else's 'opinion'. One of the great and all-too-common abuses of postmodernist thinking is the sort of lazy relativism/scepticism that says, in effect, that since no statement can ever be entirely free of subjectivity, everything basically has the same probability value, and we may as well just believe and say whatever we feel like, and painstaking research and scholarship don't matter. Please note that I am not accusing you personally of this, but that is the attitude that often provokes me into asperity.

Sometimes people seem to think that basing one's opinions and arguments on facts should only be required in an academic context, but I disagree: I think it's a matter of intellectual honesty and moral integrity for everyone, and also a mark of true respect for the people one is conversing with: what right have I to waste everyone's time by talking through my hat and perhaps making them believe things that aren't true?

Also, context matters. Here we are in the Traditional forum of Skyscript, all of us (I hope) by free will. If anyone thinks that the concept of traditional astrology as a whole, and/or some particular aspect of traditional practice (however we want to define that), such as primary directions, are bunk, and they really really want to tell people so (why?) — well, there is always the General forum for that, not to mention any number of astrology groups on social media platforms. In that sense, yes, I'd like to usher some people towards the exit, if not into the street, then at least into an adjoining room. Of course, for some, the fun is all in stirring up trouble by deliberately choosing the wrong place to air their views. Those are the sort of people we usually call trolls. (Again, not meaning you.)

In any case, I'm actually happy to discuss the changing views on primary directions over the past few centuries, both positive and negative, and especially including sources in French and other Romance languages as mentioned by Ouranos, since those are generally outside my purview, and I like learning new things.

I agree that traditional astrology is a domain where historical knowledge and personal practice overlap. There are other such domains, where scholar-practitioners are called for and have their natural habitat, not least in religious and philosophical spheres (such as, let's say, the discussion of Buddhist meditation practices). And they are certainly not echo chambers, but often places of lively debate. But by their very nature, participation in such domains is restricted to those who have acquired certain basic knowledge and personal experience of the topics under discussion (or, at the very least, are in the process of trying to acquire them, and perhaps seeking assistance).

What I object to is not informed debate between people who have first taken the trouble to study and understand the historical sources, then tested the techniques they describe and found them either satisfactory or wanting, but rather uninformed and silly provocations from people who are not interested in taking that trouble, but simply like to stir things up and cause irritation or offence. To me, that sort of behaviour does not qualify as 'honest and engaged dissent'; it's just bad manners and a waste of everyone's time. You can't dissent, in any meaningful sense of the word, from what you don't understand or won't bother to study. (Again, I don't mean you personally: that was a universal/general 'you'.)

With regard to the structure of the Skyscript forum, I believe the sub-forums were intended as, and are experienced by most users as, safe havens for discussion of particular forms of astrology. The structure may not be perfect (if it were up to me, I'd rearrange some of the forums, as the current ones are sometimes incommensurable), but basically, the Horary forum is for people who are into horary astrology; the Mundane forum, for those practising mundane astrology; etc. If you're not into a particular practice, just stay away from that forum. (Another universal 'you'.) Meta-questions such as whether horary astrology is valid as a practice or meaningful as a concept, etc., are better discussed in either the General or the Philosophy forum. The same applies to the concept of traditional astrology.

Martin— I appreciated your comparison to fields like Buddhist meditation, where scholarship and practice are deeply intertwined and where the discussion is rightly shaped by those with lived experience. No disagreement there—we’re on common ground.

If I may offer a friendly counterpoint—again in the spirit of constructive debate—I think there’s a useful distinction worth drawing.

It’s not always clear, especially in online settings, whether someone questioning a traditional technique is simply uninformed or is, in fact, speaking from extensive personal practice—just without the usual scholarly framing. A sharp or skeptical remark might come not from a desire to provoke, but from years of direct engagement and a hard-won opinion. That kind of critique may arrive without footnotes or polished rhetoric, but it’s no less serious, no less rooted in care and effort.

Astrology, after all, isn’t only a body of theory; it’s a working craft. The living substance of it appears in charts read, judgments rendered, clients met, and outcomes weighed. Without that direct involvement, even the most meticulous textual knowledge can drift into something ornamental—technically dazzling but disconnected from the field it intends to illuminate. Some of the most valuable insights come not from those repeating sources, but from those who’ve tested those sources and returned with questions. That kind of critique may sound plainspoken, even blunt, but it shows respect: it treats the tradition as something worth examining rigorously, not simply revering by default.

That said, I understand and largely agree with your point about forum structure. There’s real value in preserving spaces where practitioners can explore specific techniques without constant philosophical derailment. But I’d gently suggest that even within these focused spaces, a measure of curiosity and openness is a good thing. Traditions thrive not only through preservation but through refinement—and refinement sometimes begins with the awkward question, the out-of-step observation, or the respectfully posed doubt. If not, they become gated communities where only orthodoxy is echoed. A horary or traditional forum should certainly serve the needs of active practitioners—but it can also make room for those who approach with sincere questions or even healthy skepticism, provided it’s voiced in good faith. That’s not undermining the tradition—it’s engaging with it.

To echo your own sentiment, the goal isn’t to flatten every opinion into equal value but to welcome every participant who enters with honesty, curiosity, and a desire to learn. That, in my view, best honors the tradition and keeps it alive.

I think we’ve both laid out our perspectives clearly and in good faith. At this point, it feels like a natural place to pause the exchange and leave it for others to consider as they wish.

Regards.

Martin Gansten wrote: Thu May 08, 2025 6:44 pm I agree that traditional astrology is a domain where historical knowledge and personal practice overlap. There are other such domains, where scholar-practitioners are called for and have their natural habitat, not least in religious and philosophical spheres (such as, let's say, the discussion of Buddhist meditation practices). And they are certainly not echo chambers, but often places of lively debate. But by their very nature, participation in such domains is restricted to those who have acquired certain basic knowledge and personal experience of the topics under discussion (or, at the very least, are in the process of trying to acquire them, and perhaps seeking assistance).

What I object to is not informed debate between people who have first taken the trouble to study and understand the historical sources, then tested the techniques they describe and found them either satisfactory or wanting, but rather uninformed and silly provocations from people who are not interested in taking that trouble, but simply like to stir things up and cause irritation or offence. To me, that sort of behaviour does not qualify as 'honest and engaged dissent'; it's just bad manners and a waste of everyone's time. You can't dissent, in any meaningful sense of the word, from what you don't understand or won't bother to study. (Again, I don't mean you personally: that was a universal/general 'you'.)

With regard to the structure of the Skyscript forum, I believe the sub-forums were intented as, and are experienced by most users as, safe havens for discussion of particular forms of astrology. The structure may not be perfect (if it were up to me, I'd rearrange some of the forums, as the current ones are sometimes incommensurable), but basically, the Horary forum is for people who are into horary astrology; the Mundane forum, for those practising mundane astrology; etc. If you're not into a particular practice, just stay away from that forum. (Another universal 'you'.) Meta-questions such as whether horary astrology is valid as a practice or meaningful as a concept, etc., are better discussed in either the General or the Philosophy forum. The same applies to the concept of traditional astrology.

AJ wrote: Fri May 09, 2025 7:15 pm To echo your own sentiment, the goal isn’t to flatten every opinion into equal value but to welcome every participant who enters with honesty, curiosity, and a desire to learn.

Absolutely. Whether those qualities are present can usually be determined by multiple exchanges over time, and I agree that starting out by giving others the benefit of the doubt is a good thing.

I think we’ve both laid out our perspectives clearly and in good faith. At this point, it feels like a natural place to pause the exchange and leave it for others to consider as they wish.

Indeed.