james - with those ages you are essentially looking at the saturn cycle.
"ages 28/29 and 43 to 46"

james_m wrote:james - with those ages you are essentially looking at the saturn cycle.
"ages 28/29 and 43 to 46"

Madoff's 10th WSH ascensional times + the planets minor periods & the sum of planets minor years when in aspect from the example chart do happen to coincide with "the saturn cycle".

Is this constant in every chart I analyzed over the years? No.

james

james_m wrote:ascensional times sounds like doing primary directions in mundane, as opposed to zodiac.. i wonder if i have that correct?

The 'ascensional times' of a sign are the time it takes for that sign to rise at a particular location, expressed in degrees on the equator. Rising times are calculated by oblique ascension. Actual primary directions are calculated by right, oblique and mixed ascensions, so they are a bit more sophisticated mathematically speaking (and correspond better to astronomical realities, as oblique ascension is only used for places actually rising over the horizon). The 'mundane/zodiacal' distinction is a separate matter.

Thanks Jerd (James) for setting out how ascensions are used. I have read some material by Joseph Crane and Demetra George on this but its good to have your insights.

I suppose I have three questions:

1 Does this technique become effectively impractical at higher latitudes?
2 Do you use triplicity rulers when there are no planets in a sign?
3 What sign do you use for career?


1 Does this technique become effectively impractical at higher latitudes?

From my latitude in Edinburgh at around 56?N we have the signs Aries and Pisces rising very fast. In particular they ascend in just 10?24 degrees! Assuming we have the 1oth WS house and/or MC or critical planets in these signs would you be realistically suggesting key career moments around the age of 10? I realise we also can add in the minor periods of the planets but this still seems a problem with the ascensional approach which the early hellenistic astrologers based in Alexandria would not have concerned themselves with. As someone who has utilised this technique for some time how do you respond to that objection?

http://www.projecthindsight.com/images/ ... nTimes.pdf

2 Do you use triplicity rulers when there are no planets in a sign?

From my reading of Joseph Crane , Demetra George and indeed Valens I only see examples of planets located in signs rather than triplicity rulers. Does Valens suggest triplicity rulers if there are no planets? Could you please give me the reference from the Anthology for this as I would like to take a look. Thanks.

3 What sign do you use for career?

Taurus is a sign that just gives and gives for Madoff. It contains his 10th WS house, his MC, His sect light +ASC ruler (The Sun) , and the dispositor of all these (Venus). More generally, what sign are you principally using for career. Its interesting and more challenging when the MC, 10 WS house, Sect light and ASC ruler are all differently located!

Mark

1- a - The first I heard about the ascensional times was from Chris Brennan's MySpace forum [now offline], then I listened to Robert Hand's 2008 Triplicities lecture from the Blast conference [still available on The Blast site]. I have never been confronted to higher latitude births within my clientele; should I have been, I would have mainly relied on the basic use of triplicity rulers as I explained in an earlier reply. However to answer the following remark: "Assuming we have the 1oth WS house and/or MC or critical planets in these signs would you be realistically suggesting key career moments around the age of 10?" Of course I wouldn't. But since I work with derived houses all the time, the 10th for example becomes the 7th of the father, the 8th of brothers and sisters, etc.

1 - b - "I realise we also can add in the minor periods of the planets but this still seems a problem with the ascensional approach which the early hellenistic astrologers based in Alexandria would not have concerned themselves with. As someone who has utilised this technique for some time how do you respond to that objection?"

Why is adding in the minor periods a problem with the ascensional approach? According to Robert Hand [The Blast lecture] and Joseph Crane [Astrological Roots: The Hellenistic Legacy pp.290-294], Valens did it. Unless of course I missed the gist of your objection.

2 - Again using Madoof's chart example, let's look at the [empty] third WSH house to see how the ascensional times technique works when there are no planets in a house: diurnal birth so the order of the triplicity rulers of air is Saturn, Mercury and Jupiter. First, what sign is Saturn in? Saturn is in Aries. What is the latitude of birth? 40? North. Using the Table of Ascensional Times we see that Aries shows 18? which corresponds to 18 years. So the first triplicity ruler of the third WSH will rule for the first 18 years of the native. The second triplicity ruler Mercury is also in Aries. So the second triplicity ruler of the third WSH will rule from 18+ to 36. And so on.

3 - "Its interesting and more challenging when the MC, 10 WS house, Sect light and ASC ruler are all differently located!" Of course it is. Madoff's chart just happened to be available. Careerwise I study the whole chart. Of course the 2nd, 6th and 10th WSH are not to be neglected.


james

Hi James,

Thanks for your reply. I have only recently encountered these methods so I apologise if my comments seemed a bit crude. I am just becoming aware of the rich variety of predictive techniques in hellenistic astrology such as zodiacal releasing, circumabulations, decennials, quarters, and ascensions.

Still you were linking the ascensional times of signs to likely critical years of activity in the sign were you not? I was simply picking up that point.

I listened to Robert Hand's 2008 Triplicities lecture from the Blast conference [still available on The Blast site].

I cant seem to track this down. Oddly enough the 2007 copies of lectures on audio/video are easy to locate but I cant locate the actual link to purchase the 2008 lectures. A pity as it had a clearer hellenistic focus. If anyone can find the actual link I would really appreciate it!

I have never been confronted to higher latitude births within my clientele

As they say location, location, location! Here in Scotland it goes with the territory.

Why is adding in the minor periods a problem with the ascensional approach?

Its not. I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making reference to the point that I realised the calculation of key years could include the minor period of planets too. However, my question exclusively related to the ascensional times of signs like Aries/Pisces in high latitudes. These put the critical years in the sign earlier and earlier as you go north in latitude.

Again using Madoof's chart example, let's look at the [empty] third WSH house to see how the ascensional times technique works when there are no planets in a house: diurnal birth so the order of the triplicity rulers of air is Saturn, Mercury and Jupiter. First, what sign is Saturn in? Saturn is in Aries. What is the latitude of birth? 40? North. Using the Table of Ascensional Times we see that Aries shows 18? which corresponds to 18 years. So the first triplicity ruler of the third WSH will rule for the first 18 years of the native. The second triplicity ruler Mercury is also in Aries. So the second triplicity ruler of the third WSH will rule from 18+ to 36. And so on.

Thanks thats very illuminating. I have never found the tripartite division of a life by the triplicity rulers that convincing. I mean unless you know the length of life how can you possibly assign what a third of the life is? Using your approach though what happens for people who have already been through the whole triplicity cycle. Do you simply repeat it? What about just using the minor periods of the planets instead for triplicity ruler periods? Have you had any success with that?

Mark

If I remember correctly I had to email Moses Siregard III to get my copy of the Sept. 18, 2008 The Triplicities lecture. You will find Moses addy here: http://blastastrologyconference.com/bios.html#ms

We used Paypal, I do not know the other means of payment.

Back later for a reply on your last post; am enjoying tea at the moment!


james

Jerd wrote:

If I remember correctly I had to email Moses Siregard III to get my copy of the Sept. 18, 2008 The Triplicities lecture. You will find Moses addy here: http://blastastrologyconference.com/bios.html#ms

Thanks James!

There were actually, several very interesting looking talks on hellenistic astrology at the 2008 Blast Conference.

Mark

jerd/james

i have found this conversation educational..thanks for your ongoing comments. i went to a link at dykes site that offered a pdf of the ascensional times and note on page 2 of the pdf this comment " ascensional times are an ancient method of approximating primary direction, in which the number of degrees of right ascension ( RA) passing across the midheaven as a single sign crosses the horizon, is converted into years of life: 1% or RA = 1 year of life."

this reminds me of solar arc directions 1% = 1 year of life even if the difference is that RA can fluctuate depending on the sign and latitude, as opposed to a flat rate that is used in solar arc directions where the rate is applied a few ways, RA being the main way as i understand solar arc directions.. i was scratching my head reading the data you left on ascensional times on madoffs chart for taurus and etc and thinking how this reminded me of solar arc directions, before i read what dykes had to say on page 2 of his pdf on ascensional times..
>>
21 (Ascensional time of the sign Taurus)
28 (Ascensional time of the sign Gemini)
29 (Ascensional time of the sign Taurus + Venus' minor period)
43 (Ascensional time of the sign Gemini + Mars' minor period)
46 (Ascensional time of the sign Taurus + Moon's minor period)<<

i suppose this is getting off the track of how you are using the triplicities, but i find it interesting and especially the comment from the dykes pdf of this RA being an approximation of primary directions..

i would like to see an example worked out before hand in some predictive fashion.. perhaps this is asking too much for those using this technique to provide.. if it isn't, i would be especially curious to see how it is applied.. i am thinking you use this in some predictive manner, but perhaps i am mistaken to think this..

James_M wrote:

i went to a link at dykes site that offered a pdf of the ascensional times and note on page 2 of the pdf this comment " ascensional times are an ancient method of approximating primary direction, in which the number of degrees of right ascension ( RA) passing across the midheaven as a single sign crosses the horizon, is converted into years of life: 1% or RA = 1 year of life."

Hi James,

This old thread may help to clarify things somewhat.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewt ... a4a8b6b577

As Martin Gansten explains the ascensional rising of signs is a mathematically different technique from primary directions which according to Ptolemy's technique are calculated on the basis of proportional semi-arcs. Ascensions only focus on the oblique ascensions or rising times of signs alone (not culmination, setting, and anti-culmination). Primary directions incorporate both oblique ascensions and right ascension. The technique of relying on ascensions alone is criticised by Ptolemy in Tetrabiblos Book III. 10

Incidentally, here is a very useful article by Deborah Houlding on how to manually calculate primary directions:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/easy_directions.pdf

Mark

Mark wrote:I have never found the tripartite division of a life by the triplicity rulers that convincing. I mean unless you know the length of life how can you possibly assign what a third of the life is?

My reference for this is Bonatti: Basic Astrology - Treatises 1-3 of The Book of Astronomy, translated by Dr. Benjamin Dykes, pages 68-69. I only work with the basic use of triplicity rulers [as I explained in a earlier post] to answer a "general or universal question" to briefly quote Bonatti.

Mark wrote:Using your approach though what happens for people who have already been through the whole triplicity cycle. Do you simply repeat it?

I have rarely encountered clients "who have already been through the whole triplicity cycle" and when I did I had the same question as you, that is do we repeat the cycle? That question has not been answered yet by the different [astrological] authorities to whom I brought this subject up.

Mark wrote:What about just using the minor periods of the planets instead for triplicity ruler periods? Have you had any success with that?

On some charts I haved worked only with the minor periods of the planets, not enough I'm afraid to come to any valid conclusion.


james

Thanks again James,

I have rarely encountered clients "who have already been through the whole triplicity cycle" and when I did I had the same question as you, that is do we repeat the cycle? That question has not been answered yet by the different [astrological] authorities to whom I brought this subject up.

I know I risk sounding like a broken record here but this issue is much more highlighted in charts with high latitudes. As I am sure you are aware the differences between the ascensional rising times of the signs gets more and more extreme as you travel north (or south in the southern hemisphere).

At my latitude in Edinburgh (55?57 N) the following signs ascend very quickly:

Aries 10?24
Pisces 10?24
Taurus 14?27
Aquarius 14?27

On the other hand the following signs ascend very slowly:

Virgo 45?25
Libra 45?25
Leo 45?22
Scorpio 45?22

So it might be quite conceivable for someone in Scotland (or in other northern latitudes) to go through not just one cycle of triplicity rulers in certain signs but several! A few degrees further north Aries/Pisces ascends even more quickly. In Oslo, Norway, (59?57 N) for example it takes just 07?19 degrees!

Mark