Response to AJ’s comments in the parallax Moon post

This post is a respone to the many question AJ raised in a previous post about the parallax Moon.

AJ wrote:

First, while you now clarify that the example wasn’t intended as proof, the original post’s language—suggesting that the direction “fit more precisely” thanks to parallax—does carry the weight of an implicit conclusion. In a domain like primary directions, where interpretive margins are already quite broad, the way a finding is framed can easily tip the scale between speculation and implied validation. If the real aim was to encourage further inquiry, a clearer statement to that effect—especially given the uncertainties around the birth time—might have helped avoid the impression that this single case supports a general rule.

While it’s true that astrologers working with primary directions often find internally consistent methods that seem to yield “reasonably reliable results,” this very flexibility is part of the problem—not a point in favor of the technique’s robustness. Like Gansten, if one practitioner uses a sidereal zodiac and another uses a tropical one, one favors the Ptolemaic key and another Naibod, each a slightly “different method of directing”—and all can nonetheless claim success so long as their results are “refined” by other predictive techniques—then it becomes increasingly difficult to argue that primary directions possess any independent predictive power.

Continuing using Gansten’s methodology as an example. His practice differs significantly from your own, and these distinctions can markedly affect predictive outcomes. The difference between zodiacs alone affects house rulerships, not to mention the added contrast that Gansten uses Alcabitius houses and you use Placidus, which, for any given horoscope under scrutiny, would in almost all cases give a totally different delineation path to any significant PD. The number of differences between significators that has been mentioned before—none of these can be brushed aside. 

When divergent technical setups lead to equally acceptable results, the appearance of accuracy risks being little more than a product of interpretive elasticity. The core methods are no longer falsifiable or even meaningfully comparable. Instead, they function more as narrative scaffolding retrofitted around known events. Without a shared set of first principles—such as consensus on the zodiac, the timing key, the valid significators, and the treatment of latitude and parallax—the technique lacks the methodological coherence required of a disciplined predictive system. The idea that all systems “work” if sufficiently massaged by other techniques isn’t a strength—it’s a red flag pointing to the absence of a discriminating standard.

I do appreciate your point that different astrologers find reliable results using different combinations of settings. But here again, the larger issue is not that variation exists—it’s that there appears to be no clear methodological consensus about which of these variables matter most. If equally “accurate” results can be obtained using different zodiacs, keys, points, etc., then what exactly grounds the claim that one approach (such as the use of parallax) is more valid than another? The high degree of flexibility, while useful for retrospective interpretation, undermines any strong claim to predictive rigor unless it is paired with a clear evaluative standard and repeatable results.

On the question of timing precision, I agree that Morin’s view—that primary directions are indicative within a broader window and should be confirmed by solar revolutions—is historically accurate and contextually fair. But this again raises a critical point: if the timing of directions is inherently flexible by months or even a year, then why would a correction like lunar parallax—which often adjusts timing by a matter of days or weeks—carry significant practical weight? Either the technique is precise enough for such fine-tuning to matter, or it is not. If we accept a looser interpretive window, then we also need to be careful not to overstate the meaningfulness of small adjustments.

Lastly, the claim that primary directions serve best as “time-lords” active over extended periods risks conflating two fundamentally different conceptual frameworks. The time-lord model originates from systems such as the Dasha in Indian astrology and the Chronocrator techniques in Hellenistic and Persian astrology. These systems are structurally defined, governed by internally consistent rules (e.g., planetary periods or synodic cycles), and are not subject to the same degree of computational variability found in primary directions. While one critique of time-lord systems is the existence of multiple competing models, each tends to follow a fixed logic once adopted. If primary directions are now being reinterpreted to function like time lords—broad periods rather than sharply timed events—it suggests a retreat from their original premise: that angular distance can be precisely mapped to temporal intervals. If the model is being reshaped to accommodate imprecision, then its predictive role should be re-evaluated in light of that shift.

Again, I appreciate the refreshing spirit of inquiry in your post and your openness in engaging with critique. These kinds of discussions are essential if primary directions are to develop into a more robust and widely applicable tool. It’s an ironic thing to say, given that PDs have had over 2,000 years to evolve—but I’d argue that meaningful progress still depends on establishing clearer methodological foundations and adopting a more critical approach to validating the technique itself.

The questions AJ asks appear to apply to astrology in general and not just to the predicitive value of primary directions. For example, many astrologers today use as a main predictive tool “secondary directions” (aka “day-for-a-year secondary progressions”) which were introduced by Placidus in the 17th century. Years ago Michael Munkasy wrote an article (https://ncgrsandiego.org/articles.htm) outlining the multitude of different ways that secondary progressions could be calculated, yet in publications astrologers seldom clarify which parameters they are using to calculate their secondary progressions (how they are advancing the MC, how they are defining a day and a year, etc.), and there appears to be no consensus about how to do so. Solar Fire, for instance, offers five options for advancing the MC: Mean Quotidian, Solar Arc in longitude or Right Ascension, or Naibod in longitude or Right Ascension; and you also need to choose between standard Q2 and bija Q1 progression day types. Is there a standard, best, or most accurate way to do secondary progressions?

And then there is the question, why should a day be equivalent to a year in secondary progressions? This appears to be a matter of belief rather than science. And what kind of day, solar, sidereal, or some other measure? And what kind of year, tropical, sidereal, civil, true or mean durations, etc.? My own view is that astrology is a divinatory system that makes use of scientific techniques and findings but is not per se a science in the modern sense of the work. How does astrological truth differ from the truth of modern science?

Regarding Einstein’s chart, AJ was concerned that the birth time might be rounded and thus not the true time of birth. Such is often the case, but my own use of the 11:30 AM time of birth given for him has yielded good results over the years. Other astrologers who have discussed Einstein’s chart with this time of birth have been satisfied with its astrological reliability. Astro.com publishes a photocopy of the original birth certificate which reads: “am vierzehnten März des Jahres tausend achthundert siebendzig und neun vormittag um elf ein halb Uhr ein Kind männlichen Geschlechts geboren worden sei”  (on the fourteenth of March in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine at eleven thirty in the morning a child of the male sex was born).

Rectification is a tricky business. Some astrologers believe it is possible to find an accurate time of birth using astrological techniques. If you look through AstroDataBank, you will find that different astrologers commonly arrive at different birth times when they try to rectify the same chart. At best the rectified chart has a birth time in the ballpark of the actual time of birth, which is a time that produces a chart that “works” with the particular astrologer’s favorite techniques.

This illusion of precise timing also applies to primary directions. Some astrologers believe that if you know a birth time precisely, as well as the other astronomical parameters for casting the chart, then the primary directions will also time events precisely. This belief is common among modern astrologers, but even Morinus fell prey to it in the 17th century. On the one hand, Morin explains the many reasons why directions do not provide precise timing; and on the other, he goes to great lengths to construct a circle of aspects to take into account the latitudes of planets in aspect so that he can minutely adjust the timing of the Queen of Poland’s directions to precisely time important events in her life.

My own experience with primary direcitons is that they perfect in the ballpark of a few months of an event, but sometimes are surprisingly precise. In rectification with directions you test a large number of significant events, try to find their associated directions, and then adjust the birth time so that all the directions fit more or less, looking for the best fit as the preferred rectified time of birth, producing a chart that works best with your method of doing and timing primary direcitons, but not necessarily the actual time of birth.

There are several charts in the older literature which appear to have been “rectified” based on a single event, the death of the native, which raises suspicion about the validity of the birth time derived by the rectification. I have in mind the proposed charts of Pico della Mirandola, Henri II of France, and one of the versions of the chart of King Sebastian of Portugal.

The earliest type of primary direction appears to have been the circumambulation through the terms of bounds. Here, a Significator is identified to represent a particular area of life. Different authors used different groups of significators, which included the MC, ASC, Sun, Moon, Lot of Fortune, and the syzygy before birth. As astrology developed, newer generations of astrologers added more planets to this list. The natal positons of the birth chart were allowed to rotate with the sky, passing over these natal significators and the alignments were thought to represent significant moments in native’s life.

The terms or bounds appear to be of Mesopotamian origin, predating Hellenistic astrology. The reasoning behind these five divisions of each sign is unclear and may be based on sidereal rather than tropical factors. If so, Martin Gansten is correct in using the sidereal zodiac with techniques that use the bounds. In reading Gansten’s texts, I convert his chart examples to the tropical zodiac and use tropical terms, generally with good results. This puzzles me because the charts seem to “work” in either zodiac, which probably speaks to the divinatory nature of astrology. It seems to me that the argument about using the sidereal zodiac applies to the techniques used by the early Hellenistic astrologers. Years ago I asked Chris Brennan about doing “Zodiacal Releasing” with the sidereal rather than tropical zodiac, and he responded that in his experience it worked well with the tropical zodiac, even if the origianl zodiac when the technique originated was sidereal.

My own approach is fairly similar to Gansten’s. I consider profections, Lord of the Year, Lord of the Orb, Ptolemy’s Seven Ages of Man, cicumambulation through the terms of the relevant Signifiers, and directing by proportional semi-arc rather than circles of position (which Morin and Lilly preferred). I use the Naibod key, which in my experience has timed events most closely to when they happen but usually a little later than they actually occur (so I often use the midpoint of the Ptolemy and Naibod key). Morin also found that Naibod provided the best estimate to timing primary direcions. The difference betwen the Placidus and Naibod key beomes more significant with age; for example, at age 72 the difference is one degree = one year of life. For theoretical reasons, I prefer Placidus houses, but I also look at whole sign places and Porphyry houses to judge a chart.

Let’s look at one of Gansten’s examples from page 72 of Annual Predictive Techniques. The chart is that of an academic who gives Gansten many details of his life. I have converted it to the tropical zodiac with Placidus houses and have inserted the antiscia outside the wheel:

On page 74, Gansten notes that the native reported age 36 as being “hellish” for him. With reference to Ptolemy’s Seven Ages, this person was in a Sun period at that age. In his chart the Sun occupies the 12th house, is disposited by Jupiter in Aquarius in the 1st, and co-rules the 7th Placidus house and also rules whole sign Leo in the 8th place. The Sun is also closely trine a dignified 10th-ruler Mars at the end of Aries in the term of Saturn at the end of the 2nd Placidus house. The Sun opposes the antiscion of an afflicted Saturn, ruler of the Asc and occupant of the 7th. These factors color the background of his life from ages 22 to 41, when he enters a Mars period.

At age 36 in the sidereal zodiac the Asc was being directed through the bounds of Mars in Aquarius, and sidereal Mercury, ruler of the 7th of marriage, was casting a square into those bounds. During this year, his marriage fell apart and his wife suffered mental health problems. The following year (age 37), the directed Asc entered the terms of Saturn in sidereal Aquarius and the divorce was finalized. Gansten does not discuss the favorable celestial state of the “divisor” Mars in Aries in the sidereal chart and how Mars dignified in domicle relates to the year being hellish.

In the tropical zodiac, Capricorn is rising and Cancer is on the 7th cusp. Saturn is Lord of the Year, and with the Sun as the hour lord at birth Venus is Lady of the Orb. The profection at age 36, with Saturn conjunct the 7th cusp and the lunar south node and opposing the Asc, suggests a difficult time for marriage and a potential breakup. Lady of the Orb Venus naturally signifies love relationships. Its close quincuns to the cusp of the Placidus 8th suggests some type of crisis or major adjustment. With Venus ruling the 9th cusp and its antiscion on the MC, this adjustment would probably affect his academic and professional life.

At age 36 in the tropical zodiac, the directed Asc enters the Jupiter term (12-16) of Pisces, making Jupiter the “divisor” of the period; and at age 37 the directed Asc enters the Mercury term (16-19) of Pisces, making Mercury the “divisor.” The dispositor of Jupiter in Aqaurius is Saturn, which is Rx in the sign of its exile, Cancer, on the cusp of the 7th house.

Natal Jupiter in Aquarius is trine the Moon which rules the 7th (marriage, wife, conflicts) and occupies the 8th, with the antiscion of the Moon opposing the 8th. Natal Mercury casts a partile square to 14 Pisces 06′ which is the position of the antiscion of the Moon at 14 Pisces 02. Mercury occupies the natal 11th and rules the natal 8th, 6th, and 5th. The natal 6th is the derived 12th of undoing of the 7th of marriage. The dispositor of the 8th house Moon is Saturn Rx in exile in Cancer on the cusp of the 7th.

Here are the primary directions during this 2-year period from 2010 to 2012, calculated with Morinus freeware, placidus semi-arc, with and without latitude, Naibod key:

Primary Directions, Zodiacal. 2nd column = promissors. C = converse. D = direct. 4th column = significator. 5th column = arc. 6th column = date of perfection.

The native was born on December 18, 1973, almost at the end of the year.

In 2010, he was 36 years old. He began age 36 with the direction of an afflicted Saturn trine his Asc, and then the converse direciton Mars square his Moon in the 8th, ruler of the 7th cusp of marriage and his wife. In mid-year, the direction of the square of Mercury to the Asc (and opposing the Dsc or 7th cusp) perfected. The dates are based on the Naibod key, which at age 36 is roughly 6 months later than the Ptolmey key. The converse direction of Moon square Mars at the beginning of 2010 (age 36) fits well with his describing the year as “hellish” since Mars is the contrary to sect malific and the Moon, besides ruling the 7th cusp (wife, marriage, conflict) is a general signifier of his emotional life.

Gansten tells us that at age 40 the native began a new romantic relationship, which resulted in marriage in the following year (age 41). In the tropical chart, by primary motion the sextile of Jupiter arrived at the Moon (without latitude) in February of 2014 (age 40). At the time the directed Asc had just left the term of Saturn and the end of Pisces, and was changing sign and entering the term of Jupiter at the beginning of Aries, making his “divisor” Jupiter and his participating planet the Sun, which is exalted in Aries. With Saturn at the beginning of Cancer, the Sun would soon hand over management of the partnership to Saturn, which occupies the 7th house and is conjunct its cusp.