25
Hi Paul - no problem - the typing seems pretty good to me.

The nub of the issue is this point:
If you want to imagine the house system in 2D you imagine all points projected to the ecliptic. In 3D you project from the ecliptic from these points through the poles of the ecliptic.
This is the bit that I don't agree with. If it's true at all, it's only true if we take the ecliptic to be fundamental plane of reference, which we do when we look at a chart. However, if houses were really constructed in this way, I don't see how the issue of latitude error could be a problem, because the ecliptic position of the planet would be its 'true' house position.

The problem of latitude error arises precisely because the ecliptic degree position is shown in a 2-D house position, when the planet, lying off the ecliptic in 3-D, possibly occupies a neighbouring house. This is because the house cusp degree extended into space does not rise at ninety degrees to the ecliptic, except for those house systems where the ecliptic itself is the basis of the mundane division and the poles of the division are the ecliptic poles (e.g. Porphyry or equal etc).

I guess from my point of view, the astrological houses shown in the chart are always a reduction of the 3-D volume of the sphere to a plane, but there is never a corresponding and subsequent step, once this has been done, to then project the cuspal points through the poles of the ecliptic. I don't see this as a problem of imagination, it is a problem of representation - of visually showing something that has 3-D in a planar format. In my view, the calculations are a one-way trip!

I guess it's possible to look at an astrological chart and imagine that the house 'cusps' rise off the page, from each of the cuspal degrees, and meet at a pole marked by the centre of the wheel, but I don't know what it adds to our understanding. If what you are saying is that astrologers, when they look at a chart wheel, take the ecliptic positions that are identified by cusps and planets to be representative of their 'true' position in space, it's an uncontroversial point. However, I don't think it's necessary to create imaginary house boundaries based on these ecliptic positions when the cuspal degrees associated with the various forms of house division have already been identified.
"...the motions that are akin to the divine in us are the thoughts and revolutions of the universe."

Plato, Timaeus, 90.

26
astralwanderer wrote: This is the bit that I don't agree with. If it's true at all, it's only true if we take the ecliptic to be fundamental plane of reference, which we do when we look at a chart. However, if houses were really constructed in this way, I don't see how the issue of latitude error could be a problem, because the ecliptic position of the planet would be its 'true' house position.
The latitude of a planet is likewise projected onto the ecliptic. The only way this wouldn’t be a problem would be if, say, the ecliptic was somehow parallel to the horizon - of course nothing would rise or set. Because it’s at an angle you can easily imagine a thick band which is the ecliptic and you could have a planet with positive latitude at a given zodiacal/longitude degree and one with negative latitude at the same. Despite being at the same degree of longitude in reality one planet would peak over the horizon before the other. At a given point in time one would have risen and the other wouldn’t cos the ecliptic is at an angle to the horizon. At this moment in time one planet would be in the, say, 12th mundane house and the other in the 1st - so two planets at the same zodiacal degree could be in two different mundane houses. Yet when projected onto the ecliptic you would see them both in the same house. The degree they occupy may not appear to have risen yet even though one of the planets is over the horizon.

If I get time I’ll create a diagram later to explain it easier.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

27
Hi Paul - just responding to some of your points:
Neither Morinus nor meridian care about the horizon. Regio does cos it projects through the poles of the prime vertical - the north and south points of the horizon, not east and west.
I think you've misunderstood my point here; perhaps I didn't make it clearly. The basis for the mundane division is exactly the same for each of these house systems - 12 equal divisions of the celestial equator. The equator always runs through the east and west points of the horizon and crosses the upper meridian and the lower meridian.

The equal divisions are based on the tri-section of the arc of the equator running between the east point of the horizon and the upper meridian, the upper meridian and the west point of the horizon, the west point of the horizon and the lower meridian, and the lower meridian and the east point. In terms of each of these quarter arcs, they represent 90 degrees of right ascension or 6 hours in clock time.

In this sense, all the systems have a relationship with the horizon, because the east and west points of the horizon define key points in the quadrants. It's true that Meridian and Morinus don't use the ascendant (the intersection of the ecliptic and horizon in the east), but the horizon is still used to define the 12-fold division of the reference plane.

The differences in the house cusps come down to the fact the algorithms used to generate the cusps take different poles to identify the ecliptic degrees associated with each cusp.

When I say 'in my view' I'm giving my opinion about how things actually are.

On the idea of technical practice, all I am saying is that most astrologers focus on the interpretative side of practice, without much, if any regard, for the technical underpinnings of what they are looking at in a chart. I think it's a shame, but it's probably always been this way. Of course, in this age of click and generate a chart, it's even less common for an astrologer to have this level of understanding.
The important point is you require the ecliptic - either that or you reinvent how computer programs should do this.
I'm not sure this is strictly true. It's quite possible to generate a chart wheel that refers all positions, including house cusps, to the celestial equator. It's just another way of looking at things. The use of the ecliptic is a choice or, as you say, a convention.
Even in meriduian system the projection through the poles of the equator intersect with the ecliptic. THOSE points are the division along the ecliptic which did our house system. If you want to imagine the house system in 2D you imagine all ponts projected to the ecliptic. In 3D you project from the ecliptic from these points through the poles of the ecliptic.
It's the last sentence here that I find misses the point for me. The house cusps displayed in the chart, represented by the ecliptic degrees, are the reduction of the 3-D to the 2-D as you say in the early part of this quote. There just doesn't seem to be any need to re-imagine the sphere again, using the ecliptic projections of the cuspal points, which you describe in the final sentence. It just seems redundant to me, especially when we are looking at a chart which models the sphere as if everything exists on the ecliptic plane.
You might not agree with that - I’m not arguing it should be this way, I’m arguing it is this way.
I'm not sure what the 'it is' in this sentence.

With reference to your diagram:
the second mundane house by mundane etc but isn’t in the second house as shown by software or plotted by hand.
The planet is in the third house in your diagram because what is represented in the chart is its ecliptic degree in relation to the ecliptic degree associated with the house cusp. I understand your diagram. It's quite clear.

What I don't really see the need for is the second set of 'house boundaries' based on projection of the ecliptic degrees of the cusps through the poles of the ecliptic. The issue is that the great circle (generally house circles are great circles) that is generated by the division of the mundane reference plane and the projection of these divisions through the relevant pole onto the ecliptic (the curved line in your diagram), is sufficient to describe the problem. The projection of the ecliptic degree of the cusp doesn't add anything. I think that's what I really don't get - this last step just seems completely redundant.

By the way, I might have missed it, but it would be helpful to have your definition of 'mundane arc'. I think we might mean different things by this term.

Anyway, thanks for all your input on the forum Paul. I always appreciate your thoughtful posts.

Ed
Last edited by astralwanderer on Sat Sep 08, 2018 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"...the motions that are akin to the divine in us are the thoughts and revolutions of the universe."

Plato, Timaeus, 90.

28
Hi Paul - thanks for the further point - I understand what you are saying so please don't do a diagram unless you think it adds interest generally for other readers! I know that sort of artwork can take a lot of time.

Ed
"...the motions that are akin to the divine in us are the thoughts and revolutions of the universe."

Plato, Timaeus, 90.

29
astralwanderer wrote: I think you've misunderstood my point here; perhaps I didn't make it clearly. The basis for the mundane division is exactly the same for each of these house systems - 12 equal divisions of the celestial equator. The equator always runs through the east and west points of the horizon and crosses the upper meridian and the lower meridian.

The equal divisions are based on the tri-section of the arc of the equator running between the east point of the horizon and the upper meridian, the upper meridian and the west point of the horizon, the west point of the horizon and the lower meridian, and the lower meridian and the east point. In terms of each of these quarter arcs, they represent 90 degrees of right ascension or 6 hours in clock time.
I mean, not really. They are all an equal division of the equator into twelve 30 degree sections starting from the meridian. Of course because the meridian is the north-south divide, 90 degrees from it will be the east and west points, which are obviously composed of three sets of 30 degrees, but we're still dividing up along the equator. The horizon doesn't come into it.

The fact that the equator can be imaged to come over the horizon to the east and west is sort of immaterial. The houses don't relate to the horizon at all (except Regio of course). Just because the equator intersects with the horizon (amongst many other great circles) is immaterial. It also intersects with the ecliptic, with the galactic centre with the prime vertical and so on. What's so special about the horizon? It doesn't get involved for the calculation for the house arcs whatsoever. I think it's a red herring to imagine that because we can say that the equator demarcates east and west that somehow meridian and morinus "have a key relationship with the horizon" - what's the key? There's nothing special or important about the horizon for these house systems. Obviously Regio is different.

So when you say...
the horizon is still used to define the 12-fold division of the reference plane.
it really isn't. Both Morinus and Meridian can be utterly agnostic about the horizon in that sense. In fact if you think about this, take Meridian cos it's easiest to imagine. A given horizon will be unique and individual for an observer at a given latitude along the same meridian line. But the meridian houses will basically be the same, because the latitude, and by proxy the horizon, doesn't factor whatsoever in the calculation of the houses.
The differences in the house cusps come down to the fact the algorithms used to generate the cusps take different poles to identify the ecliptic degrees associated with each cusp.
It may be worthwhile reading through this "english language" summary of the major houses I wrote a couple ofyears ago:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9330

It's not that they take different poles to identify the ecliptic degrees per se, but rather they all take the same division and then project through different poles to create a kind of grid or coordinate system. So imagine that we have the equator, divided into twelve, and then we draw sweeping arcs up to a given pole - that is what each of the three house systems do, and they all choose a different pole. Notice that the ecliptic degrees don't come into it yet. Once we have those sweeping arcs (what we're calling mundane arcs), then we see where they intersect with the ecliptic and we flatten the entire sky into a 2D picture and these intersections along the ecliptic become our houses.

I'm not sure if this is what you're meaning or saying in your post here, but it's not that they are projected through different poles to find the ecliptic degree, they're projected as a way of dividing up the sky according to some principle. And then we find out where those arcs hit the ecliptic to determine what houses are. We might be saying the same thing, but I just want to be extra clear.
On the idea of technical practice, all I am saying is that most astrologers focus on the interpretative side of practice, without much, if any regard, for the technical underpinnings of what they are looking at in a chart.
Well here we completely agree.
I think it's a shame, but it's probably always been this way. Of course, in this age of click and generate a chart, it's even less common for an astrologer to have this level of understanding.
Well perhaps, but actually I don't think this was ever common knowledge when people did charts by hand either, at least not in the last century or so. Conversely, we now have a lot of software that generate charts and maps of the sky at a click and we can use those to visualise what's happening without needing to draw anything by hand or visiting those places ourselves. We might lose something, yes, but I think we gain a lot as well.
The important point is you require the ecliptic - either that or you reinvent how computer programs should do this.
I'm not sure this is strictly true. It's quite possible to generate a chart wheel that refers all positions, including house cusps, to the celestial equator. It's just another way of looking at things. The use of the ecliptic is a choice or, as you say, a convention.
...
When I say 'in my view' I'm giving my opinion about how things actually are.
Right, as I have said multiple times on this thread, you can do things differently, I not talking about those. I am talking about how they are actually done - whether it's convention or otherwise. If you are likewise giving your opinion about how things are actually done, then it's not important whether things could be done otherwise - they aren't. They aren't done that way.

So, to restate my point - in order to calculate houses, as we currently tend to, we need the ecliptic.
If you want to imagine the house system in 2D you imagine all ponts projected to the ecliptic. In 3D you project from the ecliptic from these points through the poles of the ecliptic.
It's the last sentence here that I find misses the point for me. The house cusps displayed in the chart, represented by the ecliptic degrees, are the reduction of the 3-D to the 2-D as you say in the early part of this quote. There just doesn't seem to be any need to re-imagine the sphere again, using the ecliptic projections of the cuspal points, which you describe in the final sentence. It just seems redundant to me, especially when we are looking at a chart which models the sphere as if everything exists on the ecliptic plane.
It's not that it's redundant - I am not saying project all points to the ecliptic and then also project the houses out from the ecliptic. I'm saying you can do one or the other - project everything onto the ecliptic, giving you a 2D view, or project house cusps from the ecliptic to render that 2D view in 3D.

I'm not saying do it a second time. I'm offering two ways of visualing the houses - one, we already know about, is in 2d. All charts we use typically define the houses 2-dimensionally. My diagram offers a different way of doing it - it allows it to be imagined on a 3D sphere where points/planets are not projected onto the ecliptic, but instead house cusps are projected out from it. But the end result is the exact same. I feel this should be obvious as to not require any further help from my part, but if it's not I will create a diagram, or find a maths text or something that explains it. I already feel I've wasted too much time on this as it threatens to distract from the points I'm actually making.
I'm not sure what the 'it is' in this sentence.
As in, this is how it actually done in reality, in practice, by convention, etc. If you open up astrological software, whether we agree with this or not, that is actually what is going on under the hood. As opposed to how we might prefer to do it, or any viewpoints we have on improving how to do it.6
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

30
Hi Paul - thanks for the response. I actually think we agree on most points. The thing I just don't see the relevance of is this:
I'm saying you can do one or the other - project everything onto the ecliptic, giving you a 2D view, or project house cusps from the ecliptic to render that 2D view in 3D.
I guess the whole point of the calculations is to render something that is in 3-D, the sphere, into 2-D, the chart, so that it can be represented in a format that's easily worked with (amongst other things).

I've just never come across someone suggesting that it's then helpful/instructive to imagine the chart in a 3-D form in the way that you have described. It just doesn't seem to add anything. From my point of view, the essential thing is to understand the compromises that are made to render the sphere into a plane in the first place, which includes accepting the difficulty of latitude error.

I understand the points you are making. The thing that I don't get is that they seem superfluous to the overall point which I think is about the issue of latitude error. I'm sorry if I don't seem to be grasping the point beyond this.

Anyway, that's enough on this topic! An interesting discussion nonetheless.

Ed
"...the motions that are akin to the divine in us are the thoughts and revolutions of the universe."

Plato, Timaeus, 90.

31
waybread wrote:But none of this is grounded in theory, or in the mathematics of what a particular system says about the cosmos. (Is there a celestial equator out there, really?? Or is it just a convention?)
Waybread,
While rereading I discovered this little aside-question of your earlier post and my imagination immediately started racing away with it.

Is the celestial equator really out there? No, of course it isn't, you can't find it in the sky, even if you point your telescope right at it. Which is what you were suggesting, I think.
Is it a convention? Maybe it is, but I would rather call it a model.

A model is a tool that enables you to look further than what is immediately apparent and it is referring to a particular experience. In the case of the celestial equator we refer to the fact that any celestial body that is found on it, will spend an equal amount of time above and below the horizon during one diurnal cycle (equal>equated>equator.) It so happens that the circle for which this is true is in a plane that is perpendicular to the rotation axis of the earth and runs through the centre of the earth. The rotation axis of the earth is another of these models.

Similarly, the ecliptic, which we take as the guiding circle of our zodiacs, is an imaginary circle in the sky where we see all the eclipses happening, both of the sun and of the moon. And if we look closer, we can see the sun on its yearly path moving along that same circle. And this ecliptic circle happens to be the plane of the yearly revolution of the earth around the sun.

We cannot see all of the experiences that our models refer to all at once, but if we connect the dots, we are able to construct these models. And in doing so we have transcended the limitations of time, so to speak.

I think house systems are models too. They should be referring to a particular set of experiences aswell and not just be a play of geometries.

32
Paul wrote:
To re-explain what I said further in the post of mind you quoted this from, imagine the mundane arc intersects the ecliptic at, say 70º - the point at which a mundane arc becomes a house system, as it’s currently used by astrologers, is that this point is subsequently projected at 90º arc.
Now you may wish to adopt a mundane house system where the entire mundane arc demarcates the area between houses, but this is typically not what astrological software, or indeed tables or formulae for house division that are done by hand.
To return to my point then, my first challenge or point of disagreement, is that we ought to separate the mundane house arcs from the astrological houses themselves - at least insofar as actual astrologers use them in practice.
Astrologers, typically, do not occupy the spaces between those arcs as the ‘houses’. Now whether or not they should is entirely another matter.
Remember: I’m not advocating a reinvention of what houses should be or how they’re calculated, you may be, but that is not what I’m doing, so my points are not related to that - my points are to point out, essentially, where the emperor has no clothes, and in doing so hope to draw attention to the fact that all the houses have problems at the poles so we can have a more reasoned discussion of house systems generally, but including “problems??? at the poles.
(Emphases are mine.)

Paul,
Your approach comes as a complete surprise to me. I see now that you have tried to explain this through many of your posts, but I didn't understand until now: didn't understand, because I couldn't conceive of it. This approach is so far removed from how I see things in astrology that it took me ages to grasp your meaning and I'm still struggling with it.

Are you saying that the way astrologers typically use house systems should take primacy? That there the essence of the subject is to be found? That the heart of the matter is in the art of interpretation?

What I find particularly hard to understand is where you say that you want to keep yourself out of it and that you're really sympathetic about using a mundane house system, for example. I see this as contradicting your other statements.

My greatest difficulty is understanding what you're trying to achieve with this approach. Where does this lead to? What is the next step? Aren't you on a dangerous path of relativistic positions?

And do I understand you correctly?

33
Ruud66 wrote: Are you saying that the way astrologers typically use house systems should take primacy? That there the essence of the subject is to be found? That the heart of the matter is in the art of interpretation?
In a sense yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. But, I feel I need to quantify that a little. My focus has been more about exposing what astrologers are doing from what they think they're doing and how they act in practice - sort of to point out the emperor's new clothes where it comes to astrology. In that sense I'm trying to step outside and look at astrology, but also astrologers from the outside in and examine the claims they make and so on and what problems that arise from that. And of course the astrological software that this entails is a key part of that - how astrologers typically conceptualise houses.

That's because my posts are more about examining astrological uses of houses starting without any premise that any of them work better than another - I'm not trying to give my preference for how they should work or be calculated. This is what I'm trying to draw attention to is things like when people say "placidus doesn't work in the poles" that we can examine the ways that might be true, but then also ways in which all the houses may not work in the poles - or indeed for anything else.
What I find particularly hard to understand is where you say that you want to keep yourself out of it and that you're really sympathetic about using a mundane house system, for example. I see this as contradicting your other statements.
I feel compelled/forced to introduce myself, because I feel nobody is following what I'm saying unless I accept some of their points - I'm trying to do that by saying, sure I get it, I'm sympathetic, but this is not my focus. I dont' mind a little bit of a "by the way" or "aside" if people feel they'll understand me better as a result, but I don't want to detract from my main focus.
My greatest difficulty is understanding what you're trying to achieve with this approach. Where does this lead to? What is the next step? Aren't you on a dangerous path of relativistic positions?

And do I understand you correctly?
It's an attempt to move away from seeing houses as things which exist in themselves - they do not. They are constructs/models used by astrologers and for the most part, they are utterly ignorant of what they're doing with them or what they model.

I'm jaded by conversations that reduce the problem of houses to being "can my house system be used anywhere in the world" kind of mentalities. And in that way of thinking, they equally think "oh Placidus is a bad house system in general becaues it can't be used at the poles" and then "quadrant houses suck cos they are so fragile they break at the poles" and the more articulate might say "quadrant divisions, cos the MC is under the horizon, breaks".

And whilst they do that, they're not thinking about the fact that actually in practice houses have things like house rulers, have properties like cadent, angular succedent and so on, and that is where the real problem is, because everything else, such as calculation, is secondary to how they're used in practice.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

34
Paul,

I read in your posts that you're not interested in calculation and conceptualisation of house systems, that you are "examining astrological uses of houses starting without any premise that any of them work better than another" and that you're "not trying to give my preference for how they should work or be calculated."
I see now this is a valid approach and that it is maybe the only way to educate astrologers about house systems and the misconceptions they may hold about the them.

My question to you: why does that mean that you oppose the research into the conceptualisation of house systems? Because that is what I've been trying to do all along.
Yes, it means that I leave astrologers free how they choose to apply the house systems in their work, however misguided that use may be. That is not really my focus.
But everytime I come up with a conclusion that I make from a theoretical point of view, you point out that the real problem is in the astrological practice. Yes, you're right, that is important! But does that mean that my focus is invalid and must be attacked?

Let me give you my view on astrological practice.
I see the practice of astrology as magic. It is exactly what you do if you perform magic. What is magic, roughly speaking? What I've seen of it (and that is just a little bit), it is a connection a person makes between the "normal" world and the spirit world. The spirit world is the underlaying quantum soup of infinite possibilities from which the phenomena we call "real" arise. These phenomena arise out of the spirit world (or dream world) because of one thing: consciousness. Human consciousness, collective consciousness, the consciousness that is underpinning all things and even empty space.
In other words: if you know what you're doing, you can create a bridge between the world of phenomena and the world of infinite possibilities with your consciousness.
Carlos Castañeda calls this the tonal and the nagual: the first and second ring of power.

What I've seen happening is that you can create a ceremony that is very deep and life-changing, by utilising simple tools. Tools you can find anywhere: a dead branch of a tree, a stone, a little bit of tobacco, some colorful candy from the supermarket, etc. etc. If, by your intent, you create a magical tool out of these everyday objects, you have performed magic and the ceremony is going to be very real and deep indeed. Feng Shui, that I talked about earlier in this context, is also magic in this sense. (Obviously, I'm not talking about magic how it is presented in fantasy stories and movies.)

Now, astrologers also perform magic by saying, intending and knowing with every fiber of their bodies that the zodiac has twelve signs and they work for them in the way they envision it. This has been done by the founders of astrology, who obviously knew what they were doing.
For houses of the horoscope this is a bit trickier, for reasons we all know: different choices lead to different systems.

My teacher, Karen Hamaker-Zondag, once told the story that she was on an astrology congress in America and she listened to a world renowned astrologer talking about the chart of a celebrity. But she discovered that the horoscope that was displayed was completely wrong. I don't know the mistake they made, maybe AM instead of PM, maybe a wrong date or year, but the interpretation was spot-on. Karen recalculated the horoscope correctly and she said she could see now the things that were said in this correct horoscope much more clearly.

Another example that I'm aware of is the Dutch astrologer J.B. Gieles (1918-2007) who created and worked all his life with the "Minus-One System of Progressions", which means that you start secondary progressions one year earlier. For example, the progressions of your 40th year of life can be found in the ephemeris on the 41st day of your life. This astrologer was able to make the most astounding predictions of great accuracy with this system. He was able to correct you on dates in your past and say: no that didn't happened in that year, it was a in this year, go, look it up! And then it turnes out he was correct and you were wrong.
And I'm sure there are numerous other astrological techniques that only worked for the astrologers who invented them.
I see the practical use of houses in the same way. If you choose your system and you believe in your choice, it will work for you if you're a good astrologer. It is surprisingly similar to choosing a Tarot deck, for example.

To wrap things up, do you see now that we are trying to do similar things, but from opposite ends of the spectrum?
You value the tradition as it is, the structure of the house system with the angles or turning points and the ideas of angular, succeedent and cadent and the accidental dignities that arise from that, and also the interconnectedness of the house lords. And then you point out to astrologers where their thinking is too simplistic, while also being sensitive to the relativity of the astrological practice.

I want to know how things work and I see that they don't work as expected at the poles. So, the question I ask is: how was the arena of the houses set up originally? What can I learn from that? And how can I reformulate the house systems from the very beginning in such a way that their behavior in the arctic and antarctic gets included? If I may use a not so humble analogy: I try to do with the house systems what Einstein did with Newton's theory of gravity. Widening the theoretical viewpoint and language to include situations that were not thought of in earlier times. In other words, I'm trying my hand at some magic.

You're saying everytime: it is only in the astrological practice where everything becomes apparent. I'm saying everytime: it is in the first idea of the conceptualisation of a system where it all begins.
I don't see where either approach contradicts the other, because we'll meet each other in the middle.

35
Ruud66 wrote: I read in your posts that you're not interested in calculation and conceptualisation of house systems, that you are "examining astrological uses of houses starting without any premise that any of them work better than another" and that you're "not trying to give my preference for how they should work or be calculated."
I see now this is a valid approach and that it is maybe the only way to educate astrologers about house systems and the misconceptions they may hold about the them.

My question to you: why does that mean that you oppose the research into the conceptualisation of house systems? Because that is what I've been trying to do all along.
Well I think you've misunderstood me, it's not that I'm not interested at all in calculation, but rather that I'm primarily interested in asking what it is we're trying to calculate. If you remember, my discussion on this started with a comment about the MC in whole and equal, and how this consideration, because the focus is always about how to calculate the houses, overlooks the problem of the houses, even for equal and whole.

My focus then is still on trying to recognise what it is we ought to be calculating and only then focusing on the calculation. Until then, what exactly are we calculating? And who are we calculating for?

It isn't that I'm against calculation, it's that it implies that problems of house division at the poles is purely/chiefly one of calculation, but I think instead that the problem is not knowing what is we're calculating.
But everytime I come up with a conclusion that I make from a theoretical point of view, you point out that the real problem is in the astrological practice. Yes, you're right, that is important! But does that mean that my focus is invalid and must be attacked?
But I'm not attacking it.

I think it's best if you feel this way that I step away from the discussion. It's not my intention.
I don't see where either approach contradicts the other, because we'll meet each other in the middle.
I agree, I think if you look over my posts you'll see my trend is to discuss calculation, but only in the context of its application. For me it's not about only one or the other, but providing a context for why and what we're calculating.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

36
Paul wrote:Well I think you've misunderstood me, it's not that I'm not interested at all in calculation, but rather that I'm primarily interested in asking what it is we're trying to calculate.
This is exactly what I'm trying to do aswell.
My focus then is still on trying to recognise what it is we ought to be calculating and only then focusing on the calculation. Until then, what exactly are we calculating? And who are we calculating for?
My impression is that we take a different route in doing this as I tried to explain earlier.
It isn't that I'm against calculation, it's that it implies that problems of house division at the poles is purely/chiefly one of calculation, but I think instead that the problem is not knowing what is we're calculating.
Can I ask you to elaborate on what you mean with 'calculation' exactly? I have seen that you use that word in (to me) surprising contexts. For example, when I try to go deeply into the conceptualisation of a system, you react by saying that it is not about the calculation, as far as you are concerned.
But I'm not attacking it.

I think it's best if you feel this way that I step away from the discussion. It's not my intention.
Paul, we have a real talent for misinterpreting each other's words, it seems. And I have a partile Mercury-Mars conjunction in Aries in the 5th: I enjoy being attacked, providing things don't get personal or ad hominem, which has not happened with you yet: on the contrary, I'd say.
I think if you look over my posts you'll see my trend is to discuss calculation, but only in the context of its application. For me it's not about only one or the other, but providing a context for why and what we're calculating.
But where does that lead to? I don't see how you get closer to understanding what 's happening with the houses in the arctic if you focus on the application and for whom you are calculating. I can only see relativism with such a focus.