Mark wrote: However, I thought other members might find this interesting.

Mhmm, you're correct. I've been in that Topo pdf before. I would have to understand how to calculate them at some point to be-all-that-I-can-be. However, geometric instructions on simpler house systems have almost invariable been incorrect leaving me to figure them out myself. And step by step instructions cause me to glaze over.

Topocentric houses would be appear to be unique in that the lines aren't going to converge on a point.

It looks like I havn't read all of it. This part catches my eye.

quote from pdf:

It is at any rate clear that the transformation from cone to sphere(2) cannot be made with great circles; but if these were to be deployed, the anomalies of the present system can only be removed by closing the mesh to a single point on the sphere. This is possible, of course, but to do so - whilst retaining Topo?s 30 degree divisions of the equator - presents us with something else we already have: house division according to Regiomontanus.

I'm kind of curious about the Whole sign people as well. A system which moves every planet I have into the next house! (insert protest here) It might be worth knowing if they are using siderial or tropical signs. Square charts or Circles.

Ariondys wrote:

Mark wrote: However, I thought other members might find this interesting.

Mhmm, you're correct. I've been in that Topo pdf before. I would have to understand how to calculate them at some point to be-all-that-I-can-be. However, geometric instructions on simpler house systems have almost invariable been incorrect leaving me to figure them out myself. And step by step instructions cause me to glaze over. Topocentric houses would be appear to be unique in that the lines aren't going to converge on a point. It looks like I havn't read all of it. This part catches my eye. quote from pdf:

It is at any rate clear that the transformation from cone to sphere(2) cannot be made with great circles; but if these were to be deployed, the anomalies of the present system can only be removed by closing the mesh to a single point on the sphere. This is possible, of course, but to do so - whilst retaining Topo?s 30 degree divisions of the equator - presents us with something else we already have: house division according to Regiomontanus.

I'm kind of curious about the Whole sign people as well. A system which moves every planet I have into the next house! (insert protest here) It might be worth knowing if they are using siderial or tropical signs. Square charts or Circles.

You are a good case study then. Do you find your house planets more accurate using one house system rather than others? Why?

http://www.metastudies.com/store/articl ... nita-burns

Cosmobiologists often prefer the Koch system because they believe that house cusps on the ecliptic are too sensitive to ecliptic transits, directions and progressions.

Well, I thought I wanted to say something about this before but the thread hadn't degenerated (inevitably) into a discussion about house systems.

My observations are my own, so when I read this I perked up. I can go, oh, that agrees with me, or I can question the veracity of this.

I havn't kept track of which cusps or how many times. But I would say in general my Koch cusps are sensitive to transits.

I think since the Sun doesn't retrograde or have latitude that it is the ideal transit to contemplate for intermediate house cusps. To the point of highliting the meanings of the house.

Slower planets are probably more reliable on the "hit-rate" where something comes to mind that actually happened, rather than a meaningless day the Sun happened cross your cusp.

If I go back 28 years... tNE=4th; I suspect this is when my family lived in a camper while our next house was under construction. Probably worth verifying this era to be a good case study. [edit: nope this memory is too early Mom said Jan 1980]

If I go back 14 years... tNE=5th; a year of going to raves. This coincides with going to the gym and eating healthy(I put on 10 pound of muscle -- the only time I ever gained weight) And that could possibly be solar arc Jupiter=6th equal house. And in the following couple years, highest paying work I've had. solar arc Jupiter on either side of my Koch 6th.

and now tNE=6th. Not much perspective yet. Strange ideas about nutrition and hygeine and whatever else? Can't be good, and I'm sure it isn't. I have no stamina left.

Certain different house system might have different connotations. Bodily vs Career?

I think everyone should be familiar with this:
http://www.uranian-institute.org/bfwitte.htm

Alfred Witte was a professional surveyor/engineer and astrologer/astronomer credited with formulating an astrological methodology forming the basis of what are today called "Uranian Astrology" and "Cosmobiology". Witte sought to test and sort out assumptions of classical astrology, and thus his early writings include techniques which he eventually discarded. An example of the astrological fundamentalism that Alfred Witte confronted in the early 20th century was the centuries-long trend of working with house systems simultaneously putting the Ascendant at the first-house cusp and the Meridian at the 10th. Witte noted in an article in the Astrologische Rundschau in the 1920s that the Ascendant and Medium Coeli measure two different dimensions and should not be combined as house cusps in a single system, and that event Ptolemy had already spoken of separate houses for the Ascendant, and houses for the Meridian (1975 p250). Fundamentalist astrologers nonetheless continued to turn a deaf ear to his statement until recent years. Witte later recommended that houses be dispensed with (1975, p 255), noting that effective use of midpoints often yields similar, but more precise information.

Hello Mark,

Re: Cusp being the strongest point in a House and yet, not the beginning of the house and Mark's comment, "I agree with that but I suspect our reasons are somewhat different. Would you mind setting out your explanation for the above statement?"

Surely... since it is the (Topocentric) cusp that is responsive to Primary Directions and Secondary Progressions to within just minutes of arc, AND since Primary Directions (and most Secondary Progressions) mature in under 0? 12' of arc, it establishes that cuspal point as the "power point" of that house. As for the cusp not being the very beginning of the house, this is easily observable and has been commented on by numerous astrologers. Additionally, many astrology programs have a (software) switch that will adjust the printouts to show the correct house (as in the following example) The cusp cannot be the beginning of a house, because a Saturn that sits at 5? Libra when the 8th House (Topo) cusp is at 7? Libra is an 8th House Saturn.

Re: "Lots of astrologers think that a practical demonstration of their technique is proof that their system works beyond others."

Not quite. What I am saying is, if we have a very, very accurate birth chart, that the Topocentric House system will give the tightest (overall, accumulative, how ever you want to say it) aspects of relevant planets to relevant cusps at major events (across the entire events list) than the other systems. As I am interested in the comparison between the systems, then any intensive study of the various systems would (by definition) be an indicator that it works better than the others. ie. this is a mathematical point, not a subjective one...

Re: "The fact that one approach can produce results doesn't exclude the possibility of totally different techniques working too."

We're talking about house systems and the precision of where each of them places the cusps. A house system, cusp placement, is a measurement. If I give you a bar that is one meter long and we have 10 people measure it...the person coming closest to one meter is the "rightest" measurement. 99 cm would be a pretty good measurement, but not as good as 100 cm. 99 cm might be "usable" but that doesn't mean that 99 cm is completely accurate. Same with the houses...

Re: "I am certainly no mathematician. The very idea would generate hilarity amongst anyone that knows me."

I also am not a mathematician. That being said, I did have the highest score (Junior Engineering Technical Society) in mathematics in the state of Illinois and the 2nd highest score in the entire United States. (this paid for my college education)

Re: "However, I have noticed that a high proportion of mathematically inclined astrologers seem to have a strong objection to the Topocentric house system in a way you dont find being raised against other systems based on semi-arcs such as Placidus, Alcabitius or Koch. Why is this?"

Because they are hanging on the (perceived) philosophical principles and their understanding of the math rather than on actual analysis of tightly-timed charts and the relevant aspects. ie. ivory tower never trumps real world observation

Re: "Here is an article by Michael Wackford challenging the mathematical soundness of Topocentric houses (which he contrasts unfavorably to Placidus semi-arcs)"

I am already aware of Wackford (as is Isaac Starkman) and his opinion. He is looking at the math (from HIS perspective) and he is not looking at what is being done and what is observable as a result of that math. Picture any of the many people who thought powered flight was an impossibility and tried to back that up with (their understanding of) physics to prove it. Standing at Kitty Hawk in December 1903 and watching the plane fly over pretty much refutes any preconceived notions. The problem with theories vs. reality (as an observational stance) is that two years of constant calculations and reasoning can be trumped by two minutes of real-world observation.

Re: "Wackford along with other astrologers like Cyril Fagan, Robert Hand, Neil Gillings, and Jose Lebron seem to feel the mathematical foundation of this house system is flawed."

If instead of looking at the math, they instead had looked at Primary Directions and Secondary Progressions in real-life examples on tightly timed charts, then they would be of a different opinion. Cyril Fagan was a siderealist. Robert Hand worked in the tropical. They can't even agree among themselves on that, yet we are to take their agreement on Topocentric House "problems" as infallible? Additionally, it is funny to see (the great) Cyril Fagan's name in the list, since Fagan used and promoted Alexander Marr's rectification of Fagan's birthtime and Marr's usage of Topocentric Houses was necessary for the rectification!

Look at some actual examples...compare. As you said, you are no mathematician...so doesn't it make much more sense to look at real-world examples and compare orbs (simple math) than to argue from philosophical and abstract mathematical principles which seems to be what Wackford, etc. are doing?

Re: "I should say I am not taking sides in this debate."

I didn't really have a side. I was using Placidus. I observed some of Isaac's postings. I went and researched the astrology (especially as regards tightness of aspects in Primary Directions and Secondary Progressions) and Topocentric gave the tightest orbs of all of the house systems that I tested. As it was demonstrably proficient, I adopted Topocentric. Had Placidus shown tighter aspects, I'd still be using Placidus.
Take care

James

Atlantean wrote: We're talking about house systems and the precision of where each of them places the cusps. A house system, cusp placement, is a measurement. If I give you a bar that is one meter long and we have 10 people measure it...the person coming closest to one meter is the "rightest" measurement. 99 cm would be a pretty good measurement, but not as good as 100 cm. 99 cm might be "usable" but that doesn't mean that 99 cm is completely accurate. Same with the houses...

james do you think the idea of the division of the circle into 12 houses is a philosophical decision, or one based on something more tangible, like the making of a bar in a metal shop?

Atlantean wrote: ivory tower never trumps real world observation

james, do you think your observations are more valid then others observations?

Atlantean wrote: The problem with theories vs. reality (as an observational stance) is that two years of constant calculations and reasoning can be trumped by two minutes of real-world observation.

is the idea of '12 houses' a theory or a reality?

Atlantean wrote: Look at some actual examples...compare. As you said, you are no mathematician...so doesn't it make much more sense to look at real-world examples and compare orbs (simple math) than to argue from philosophical and abstract mathematical principles which seems to be what Wackford, etc. are doing?
James

james does astrology have any philosophical or abstract principle, or is astrology all very tangible like a physical object where you'd be able to 'measure' it in a fully objective way?

james_m wrote:
james does astrology have any philosophical or abstract principle, or is astrology all very tangible like a physical object where you'd be able to 'measure' it in a fully objective way?

i would like to clarify myself here.

more specifically - do you think house systems have any philosophical or abstract principle, or are house systems all quite tangible in a concrete manner as you appear to suggest here?

Hello james_m

Re: "james do you think the idea of the division of the circle into 12 houses is a philosophical decision, or one based on something more tangible, like the making of a bar in a metal shop?"

I would say (ie. my humble opinion on the matter is) that it is some of both. 12 months in a year... 12 disciples... etc. The number 12 obviously has certain "significances" in the real world. That being said, I think it's completely observable that yes, indeed, there are 12 distinct houses in terms of a connection between astrology and "areas of life." There may be more to it with the idea of 12 Houses, but there most certainly is not "less" to it.

Re: "james, do you think your observations are more valid then others observations?"

Not at all, though they are more believable initially, since I've seen it with my own eyes. In this case, House systems comparisons, I haven't witnessed anyone else doing an intensive study. Anyone approaching this from a delineating stance instead of an event <----> astrology stance, might as well be playing darts in a pitch dark room. For something involving a system of measurement, it is best to stick to more objective approaches as the subjective ones can be misleading. Do you think someone gets a better view of a planet by looking through a high-powered telescope than by looking at a grainy photo in a newspaper?

Re: "...is the idea of '12 houses' a theory or a reality?"

Reality. The "activity" of the 12 Houses can be observed. We wouldn't see such reliable and tight aspects to relevant house cusps at events (when looking at Primary Directions and Secondary Progressions) if there wasn't something fundamentally true about the 12 House divisions.

Re: "...james does astrology have any philosophical or abstract principle, or is astrology all very tangible like a physical object where you'd be able to 'measure' it in a fully objective way?"

Again, it appears to be both. There are both philosophical implications as well as certain abstract ideas connected with it to be sure. However, if these don't stand up to scrutiny in the real world, then they have no value beyond the abstract. If Morin states that certain directions will exist at death and we find many cases of death without those directions, then the initial premise has to be incorrect.

When I look at these things, I often attempt to often understand the statistical ramifications, the probabilities. We have to ever be vigilant as to what is really a statement and as to what is ultimately indistinguishable from coincidence. In astrology, this brings in necessarily the concept of orbs, since too large of orbs ENSURES that we can find proper symbolism in hindsight ALWAYS. The more stringent those orbs are, the drastically lower that these line-ups could be happening simply as coincidence and this is obvious when we stop to consider the probabilities.

As an example, let's look at one event and really think about it for a second. What are the chances (not looking for specific numbers, just an appreciation of the magnitude) that at the ONE TIME IN MY LIFE that my Ascendant directed to conjoin my natal Venus would be the exact same timing that I get married to the love of my life? Here, we have a marriage (pun intended) of both the philosophical (ie. that the Ascendant relates to me and that Venus could be considered to relate to "the female love of my life") as well as the observable. (ie. that the (measurable) one time the aspect became partile is exactly the same time the symbolically-related event transpired) Now, if we multiply this very small probability by the probabilities of the other line-ups that occur across my entire event list, we arrive at a number so small that it can be considered infinitesimal. ie. winning two state lotteries simultaneously would be more expected than the astrological line-up to be coincidental

Because of this mathematical reality, when trying to determine the location of intermediate cusps it makes a thousand times more sense to do this using dynamic time systems (the objective) rather than some delineation approach (very subjective).

If I say "look, across my entire event list, the relevant aspects are occuring with the correct house cusps and to just scant minutes of arc", we have made a mathematical statement of worth because the probabilities are too low for this to be able to happen by coincidence. On the other hand compare that to the statement "my Saturn can't be in the 2nd House because I don't like antiques." It's literally the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. (not because I say so, but because of the math and the specificity)

Or, think of it this way... consider flipping a coin. If we flip it just once (ie. relating to finding ONE correspondence of symbolically correct aspect happening right with the event) we have a 50% probability of heads and the same for tails. When we are considering entire lists of events, we have a group of mutually exclusive confirmations and therefore the individual probabilities are multiplied to arrive at the cumulative probability. In our coin-flipping example, what was a 50% chance since we were talking about getting "Heads" once...now becomes a 0.976% chance if we're insisting on there being 10 Heads in a row. ie. (0.5 ^10 OR .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5)

My proposed way to establish the location of the intermediate house cusps would be to take a well-timed chart and look at the Secondary Progressions at events across the entire event list and only consider the symbolically relevant ones relative to house cusps. Simply do this with each house system. The house system that (repeatedly) gives the tightest orbs is the one that is most correct. (We still haven't established it's 100% correct, we've merely proven that it outperforms the others under consideration) The fact that Primary Directions and Secondary Progressions tend to mature (with associated events) with orbs less than 0? 11' establishes their location with at least that accuracy. (It's technically higher, since we have an entire list of events)

Were I not of an open mind, I would have never open-mindedly considered the evidence and therefore never have been in a position to switch to Topocentric Houses. I'm not asking others to switch, but I am asking merely that they have an open mind.

Peace

James

Atlantean wrote: As an example, let's look at one event and really think about it for a second. What are the chances (not looking for specific numbers, just an appreciation of the magnitude) that at the ONE TIME IN MY LIFE that my Ascendant directed to conjoin my natal Venus would be the exact same timing that I get married to the love of my life? Here, we have a marriage (pun intended) of both the philosophical (ie. that the Ascendant relates to me and that Venus could be considered to relate to "the female love of my life") as well as the observable. (ie. that the (measurable) one time the aspect became partile is exactly the same time the symbolically-related event transpired)

Can I ask, is this measured a specific way? so many variables... is the measure in RA using the declination of the AS to a placidean arc, or great circle(if so, passing through what other point) through venus. Or measured using the declination of mundane venus or zodiacal venus to the horizon. Once measured, what key is used to convert to an age.

Good morning,

It would be interesting and useful to know precisely which testing methods Mr Atlantean applied:

"... Topocentric gave the tightest orbs of all of the house systems that I tested. As it was demonstrably proficient, I adopted Topocentric."

Were they within the framework of 'anecdotal evidence' applied by the vast majority of astrological authors ancient and modern or would they stand up to scrutiny by persons duly qualified in mathematical statistics?

Best regards,

lihin

james,

thanks for your response. it appears you're more open to the idea of ""12"" houses being something of a concept as opposed to a physical object that can be measured with a measuring device.

i note in the example of your commentary that Ariondys highlights the additional issue of what particular measurements one decides to use have great bearing on any conclusions. also i would like to point out that no one seems to dispute the angles - ascendant and midheaven axis (- which you use in this example) but instead are more conflicted on the way of merging the two axis which is the basis for many of the house systems, excluding just 3 - whole sign houses, equal houses and a house system that divides equally off the midheaven angle, which i rarely see anyone use.

another topic that i think has relevance to this issue of house cusps is midpoints. it is my personal viewpoint that if one doesn't bother to work with midpoints it is more difficult to see any number of turning points that can happen in a persons life as i don't think they are all gotten off just a particular house system that one opts for or concludes (rightly or wrongly) is the most accurate one. thanks again for your comments.

Good evening,

Unless i have overlooked something, it appears that the concurrently, complementary use of two different house systems for topical interpretation, for example Whole Signs and Alchabitius by Mr Robert Zoller, who had applied the Placidus system in his early book on Arabic Parts, has not yet been discussed in this thread.

This approach is different from the use, ex. gr. in some schools of Hellenistic astrology, to use Whole Signs for topical interpretation, a quadrant system like Porphyry to assess the planets' inclinations to be active.

The use of any topical place system at all, for example the Birth-Place-Houses (German GOH: Geburtsort-H?user) of Dr. Walter Koch, in the 20th century Aalener School (also known as cosmobiology) of Herr Reinhold Ebertin is an innovation propagated by some of his students including his son Dr. Baldur Ebertin. Reinhold Ebertin clearly wrote against house systems and used 'general significations' of the planets together with their midpoint configurations for topical analyses. In my humble opinion this avoidance of a 'house system' altogether is one of the salient positive components of the Aalener School's approach, as it significantly simplifies, concentrates and accelerates astrologers' work.

House systems were very thoroughly and controversially discussed for example in German astrological journals during the 1930s.

Best regards,

lihin

Hello Ariondys,

Sorry for the delay in answering...

Re: "Can I ask, is this measured a specific way? so many variables... is the measure in RA using the declination of the AS to a placidean arc, or great circle(if so, passing through what other point) through venus. Or measured using the declination of mundane venus or zodiacal venus to the horizon. Once measured, what key is used to convert to an age."

I really use these Primary Directions strictly through software designed particularly for that purpose. In other words, I have not researched the math nor the philosophical nor astronomical underpinnings of the methodology. I believe that if you will research the methods of Carl K?hr and (later) Alexander Marr, that you will have all of those questions answered. [Carl K?hr method, but with Topocentric Houses...that is the key element]

Isaac Starkman did the programming necessary (for his Polaris program), so I am sure that he could likely answer any of these questions on the actual math involved.

Take care

James