skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Equal verses unequal house systems
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 499
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 8:45 pm    Post subject: Equal verses unequal house systems Reply with quote

Hi Skyscribes!

Recently, I was once again pondering about the foundations of equal verses unequal house systems.

Personally, I most often use equal houses. For one thing, I like symmetries. And it makes sense to me that the houses we use should resemble the signs.

But beyond this, there is a theoretical problem regarding all unequal house systems that was brought to my attention many years ago by a book written by the German astrologer Wulfing von Rohr. I tried to discuss the topic with a few astrologers (including a very prominent one) but I didn't get the impression that they even completely understood the celestial mechanics involved. Eventually I would figure out a few things by myself and come up with the following simple definition of the problem:

Almost all house systems (except equal) are based on the two axes, ASC-DSC and IC-MC. The celestial equator exactly ascends in the east and descends in the west. Therefore, the meridian (the circle connecting north and south via the zenith and the nadir) always intersects the equator at the latter's culmination (highest point from the horizon), 90° away from the ascendant.

The problem of unequally sized houses arises because the zodiac, more precisely the ecliptic, doesn't coincide with the equator. This means that the zodiacal degrees ascend and descend a little off-set from the equator, except when 0° Aries or 0° Libra are rising (where the ecliptic intersects the equator).

At any other time, therefore also the true highest point of the zodiac (which naturally is always exactly 90° away from the ASC) is not on the meridian.

Projecting this situation on our chart, we then get quadrants of more or less than 90°.

Now, why do we derive our (unequal) house systems based on the ascension of the zodiac but on the highest point of the equator? Isn't this mixing apples and pears?

Wulfing von Rohr believes so. He thinks that, actually, this practice was founded on a misunderstanding of the literature that once occurred in the history of astrology!

However, I did use other house systems for a long time, and I can't deny that they sometimes give very meaningful results, too.

I wonder if you have any thoughts or observations regarding the two different types of houses.

Best regards
Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Atlantean



Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 396

Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Michael,

You've asked a very important question!

Let me illustrate my opinion with an example...

Below are my (Topocentric) Primary Directions for many major events in my life:



Below are my Secondary Progressions for many major events in my life:



First, let's focus on the deaths:

Grandfather dies: TPD Node - 8th (orb 0° 3')

Father dies: Prg Saturn - 8th (orb 0° 7')

Mother dies: TPD Neptune - 8th (orb 0° 1')

Grandmother dies: TPD Moon - 8th (orb 0° 6') & Prg 8th - Node (orb 0° 0')

Step-father dies: TPD 8th - Mercury (orb 0° 0')

Ex-wife dies: TPD Moon - 8th [Natal & Epoch] (orb 0° 5' both) & Prg 8th - Saturn (orb 0° 3')

For these SIX deaths, we have NINE activations to just scant minutes of arc with the EIGHTH HOUSE CUSP. Avg orb: 0° 3'

This shows right where my 8th Cusp is located. [Topocentric]

Okay, let's look at major Travel/Relocation:

For the two events, Move Overseas & Trip to Italy, we have 4 (Primary Directions and Progressions) relating...

Jupiter - 9th (orb 0° 5') & 9th - Jupiter (orb 0° 4')

Venus - 9th (orb 0° 6') & 9th - POF (orb 0° 0')

Avg. orb: 0° 4'

This shows right where my 9th Cusp is located. [Topocentric]

The activation of relevant cusps continues, depending on the event...

3rd House for Births of Siblings
5th House for Births of Children

All of these activations are to the relevant cusps and to just scant minutes of arc. This shows (drastically against coincidence) exactly where these cusps are.

The Topocentric House system is the only one derived empirically. ie. Let's take well-timed births and look at events and see where the Primary Directions SHOULD be. Then, AFTER this point, let's define the House system that puts the cusps in THOSE correct positions. The fact that these are also the locations for the Progressions (a completely different system, since TPD's are derived through Earth's rotation, Progressions through Earth's revolution) underscores those exact positions.

Because of this, I say unequivocally that these are exactly where my cusps are located. The only House system that shows the right location is Topocentric. Certainly, Equal Houses and Whole Sign Houses won't get you there... in those systems, there is NO "hot point" at the cusp that is reflected overwhelmingly at events. For Topocentric Houses, whether using Primary Directions, Secondary Progressions, Transits, or Age Harmonics (all direct and converse) or all simultaneously, there is!

T o p o c e n t r i c

Take care

James
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2960
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

what was the name of the comic character in the ed sullivan show? topo gigio? lol.

michael - thanks for sharing your insights and raising an interesting question on this ongoing astrological conversation..

Michael Sternbach wrote:

Now, why do we derive our (unequal) house systems based on the ascension of the zodiac but on the highest point of the equator? Isn't this mixing apples and pears?


good question. my understanding is that it is the time it takes for the ascendant degree to reach the midheaven that is the basis for many of these house systems that combine the 2 different axis. if that is correct, then it isn't so much that they are based on the midheaven axis but on the length of time it takes the ascendant degree to reach the midheaven and divided accordingly. maybe i have to go back and read the framework for these different house systems, but i have always had the same problem with house systems for the same reason - trying to combine two completely different axis. this is why i favour a psychological perspective off the ascendant axis and equal house systems. that said, i think the midheaven axis have a lot of relevance and bearing on a chart too. i just don't favour blending them.

now some folks claim that can get results off house cusps in these various different house systems, but unless they can show in advance - it is all back fitting hindsight astrology where the vision is 20/20, but that can't be replicated when one goes to making predictions.. to use house cusps for the basis of making predictions seems like skating on very thin ice to me, but for anyone who claims they have success with it - show the goods.. all i see is hindsight astrology in the many justifications for this or that house system.

a good part of the reason i like equal houses is based on an emphasis and interest in psychological astrology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 499
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Atlantean wrote: Apr 20, 2014 10:11 am
Quote:
The Topocentric House system is the only one derived empirically. ie. Let's take well-timed births and look at events and see where the Primary Directions SHOULD be. Then, AFTER this point, let's define the House system that puts the cusps in THOSE correct positions. The fact that these are also the locations for the Progressions (a completely different system, since TPD's are derived through Earth's rotation, Progressions through Earth's revolution) underscores those exact positions.


James,

Thanks for posting your personal experiences with the topocentric system - impressive!

I once looked into topocentric houses because I, too, found the idea of a house system based on empirical research intriguing.

Atlantean wrote: Apr 20, 2014 10:11 am
Quote:
Certainly, Equal Houses and Whole Sign Houses won't get you there... in those systems, there is NO "hot point" at the cusp that is reflected overwhelmingly at events. For Topocentric Houses, whether using Primary Directions, Secondary Progressions, Transits, or Age Harmonics (all direct and converse) or all simultaneously, there is!


I guess there are traditional astrologers on this forum who are using various kinds of directions with equal house systems. I would love to hear about your experiences!

james_m wrote: Apr 20, 2014 7:00 pm
Quote:
maybe i have to go back and read the framework for these different house systems, but i have always had the same problem with house systems for the same reason - trying to combine two completely different axis. this is why i favour a psychological perspective off the ascendant axis and equal house systems.


Quote:
a good part of the reason i like equal houses is based on an emphasis and interest in psychological astrology.


James,

This raises the question whether different house systems may pertain to different levels of an individual's experience? If your focus is primarily psychological, it certainly makes sense to look at a chart with equal houses as a kind of mandala representing the native's self.

james_m wrote: Apr 20, 2014 7:00 pm
Quote:
that said, i think the midheaven axis have a lot of relevance and bearing on a chart too. i just don't favour blending them.


I agree, it's perfectly okay to take the MC into account as a sensitive point even when using equal houses.

james_m wrote: Apr 20, 2014 7:00 pm
Quote:
to use house cusps for the basis of making predictions seems like skating on very thin ice to me, but for anyone who claims they have success with it - show the goods.. all i see is hindsight astrology in the many justifications for this or that house system.


"Proving" that one particular house system gives results more accurate than another could really be very difficult, just like with so many other factors in astrology (and psychology, for that matter). Generally, laypersons tend to underestimate the difficulties of proving something according to rigorous scientific criteria. Bear in mind that astrology in general has repeatedly been both proven and refuted on grounds of statistical research. Laughing Quite recently, scientist started questioning the value of statistical methods themselves.

Thanks

Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1482

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:46 am    Post subject: Re: Equal verses unequal house systems Reply with quote

Michael Sternbach wrote:

Personally, I most often use equal houses. For one thing, I like symmetries. And it makes sense to me that the houses we use should resemble the signs.


Hi Michael

Do you make use of the MC at all or just the nonagesimal (equal houses 10th house cusp).

Quote:
At any other time, therefore also the true highest point of the zodiac (which naturally is always exactly 90° away from the ASC) is not on the meridian.


Michael I struggle with some of the celestial mechanics but can you explain why it is true that the highest point of the zodiac is 90º away from the ascendant? If we consider that the ascendant is the intersection with the horizon and the ecliptic, why would it follow that the highest point that the ecliptic can reach is 90º from this point, keeping in mind that the ecliptic and equator are not aligned? I am not following that logic.

Sorry if I'm being obtuse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1482

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:08 am    Post subject: Re: Equal verses unequal house systems Reply with quote

Michael Sternbach wrote:

Now, why do we derive our (unequal) house systems based on the ascension of the zodiac but on the highest point of the equator? Isn't this mixing apples and pears?


I'm really not sure it is, after all, recognising both the equator and ecliptic is just recognising the reality of movement of planets from our observational position.

Planets creep over the eastern horizon and appear to rise in sky as the day goes on and then start to fall again and set in the western horizon. But we need both the ecliptic, on which we can symbolically imagine they are stationary, as a static position along a track, and then the turning of the earth to account for its apparent motion through the day. We can never really separate the equator and the ecliptic here.

I am not following the highest position being equatorial, surely it is both equatorial and ecliptically derived? The highest position is the position on the ecliptic, which is in reference to the imaginary lines running from the poles overhead to the ecliptic - the poles being the thing to bring in the equator.

When I think of house systems like Placidus, we can imagine tracking the sun as it rises, culminates and sets, and then all we're doing is dividing the time it takes for that to happen by 6 to get our houses. And really I don't see why there would be anything abnormal about that, or mixing apples and pears. HOW we make that calculation mathematically is really separate to the symbolism of what we're doing. I think if we think of it symoblically it makes good sense. The half way point, therefore, is the point at which it is at the highest it can get in the sky, and this is our MC.

Personally I tend to use equal and placidus the most often when I cast a chart, and I have never felt that one is any truer or more real than the other, or indeed had any philosophical issues with mixing the two.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2960
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael Sternbach wrote:


I guess there are traditional astrologers on this forum who are using various kinds of directions with equal house systems. I would love to hear about your experiences!


i am not going to box myself into whether i am a this or the other type of astrologer, but i do use different types of directions, including primary directions. i just don't rely on data to house cusps unless it is data to the angle cusps. i guess that means i will consider data to 4 house cusps, as opposed to 12. that means i weigh the ascendant and midheaven axis much greater then i do any other house cusp gotten via some sort of integration of the 2 different axis. fwiw - there are very few astrologers discussing primary directions, let alone the different options they use to arrive at any conclusions they offer on the data. it is sort of like saying i sailed across the ocean on a sunny day without mentioning what the wind or waves were doing.. apparently since so few are discussing pd's we are supposed to be content just being told this is the pd that i used to arrive at this conclusion!

do these same astrologers who are adamant on the value of data to a house cusp (other then an angle) consider midpoints? personally i put more weight into midpoints then i do theoretical house cusps.. how much is one looking at? ( we will never know, lol).. can it be replicated in some type of statistical study? does it matter? is it just someone's word against someone else? this brings me to your last quote down below.. is there some article you'd like to share discussing this? how recent is 'recent'? thanks.


Michael Sternbach wrote:

Quite recently, scientist started questioning the value of statistical methods themselves.

Thanks

Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 499
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote: Apr 22, 2014 9:46 am
Quote:
Do you make use of the MC at all or just the nonagesimal (equal houses 10th house cusp).


Hi Paul,

Yes, I do look at the MC when delineating a chart – as a sensitive point signifying the native's goals and vocation.

Quote:
Michael I struggle with some of the celestial mechanics but can you explain why it is true that the highest point of the zodiac is 90º away from the ascendant? If we consider that the ascendant is the intersection with the horizon and the ecliptic, why would it follow that the highest point that the ecliptic can reach is 90º from this point, keeping in mind that the ecliptic and equator are not aligned? I am not following that logic.


I see I need to break this down further:

Think of the ecliptic as a circle concentric with the horizon but at the same time oblique to it. So at any given time, one half of the zodiac will be over, the other half under the horizontal plane. Each half is measuring 180°, of course. The point of the zodiac with the greatest altitude over the horizon will therefore always be found one quarter of the circle or 90° away from the ascendant. Simple enough?

However, this position coincides with the meridian only twice a day.

Now, add two more concentric circles: the meridian connecting north and south, and the prime vertical connecting east and west. These two circles are intersecting each other right above your head in the zenith, and are perpendicular both to the horizon and each other. You got the picture? Great!

Now, the equator always rises where the prime vertical intersects the horizon (exactly in the east), and has its highest altitude in the south, right on the meridian. The zodiacal ascendent however oscillates forth and back over that point in the course of the day, and so does its highest point in respect to the meridian.

For illustration, please go to this planetarium website:

http://in-the-sky.org/skymap.php

Toggle on “ecliptic” and “ALT/AZ grid”. Navigate until you have south right in front of you on the horizon. You are now straight looking at the meridian. Unless you set a time when 0° Aries or 0° Libra are rising, you will easily see that the ecliptic doesn't reach its highest altitude on the meridian (MC).

In the equal house system, the 10th house cusp has the same relation to the zodiacal ascendant like the MC to the equatorial ascendant. Why then do we mingle these two systems for deriving our quadrants?

Quote:
Sorry if I'm being obtuse.


Certainly not more so than a supposedly very knowledgeable astrologer (many of you have must have heard of) was when I tried to clarify this issue with him in a planetarium (!). Confused

Paul wrote: Apr 22, 2014 10:08 am
Quote:
I am not following the highest position being equatorial, surely it is both equatorial and ecliptically derived? The highest position is the position on the ecliptic, which is in reference to the imaginary lines running from the poles overhead to the ecliptic - the poles being the thing to bring in the equator.


Any particular position on the ecliptic (or zodiacal degree) will reach its individual highest altitude (culmination) when reaching the meridian. But (more often than not), there are at the same time other degrees of the zodiac already or still in higher altitudes relative to the horizon (as the online planetarium demonstrates).

Quote:
When I think of house systems like Placidus, we can imagine tracking the sun as it rises, culminates and sets, and then all we're doing is dividing the time it takes for that to happen by 6 to get our houses. And really I don't see why there would be anything abnormal about that, or mixing apples and pears.


Well, yes, seeing the house system as somehow analogous to the rising and setting of a celestial body may be the (only) explanation for this geometrical hodgepodge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Konrad



Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Posts: 684

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael Sternbach wrote:
Any particular position on the ecliptic (or zodiacal degree) will reach its individual highest altitude (culmination) when reaching the meridian. But (more often than not), there are at the same time other degrees of the zodiac already or still in higher altitudes relative to the horizon (as the online planetarium demonstrates).


I'm not sure I understand you here, Michael. How can a degree reach its highest point at the Meridian but then, potentially, be higher when the degrees that rise after it reach the Meridian?
_________________
http://www.esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Larxene



Joined: 22 Sep 2012
Posts: 312

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps a picture will help here?




Konrad, that's because the horizonal zenith may be in a higher position than the highest position of the ecliptic; so although both points lie on the local meridian, the zenith angle of the second one can be >0 degrees. See the image above.


EDITED: The zenith angle is measured from the zenith. I got it backwards at first. So if the zenith angle = 0 it means that a planet is right at the zenith, assuming that its azimuth is aligned to the local meridian. Zenith angle > 0 means that the planet is below the zenith.
_________________
Interested in Hellenistic astrology? Visit my blog.

The appearance changes, but the essence remains.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Konrad



Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Posts: 684

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ha ha, right yeah, thanks Larxene. It's gone right over my head that one. I have subscribed to that Astronomy course you mentioned a while back, so when it begins again, I will get it, I'm sure. Smile
_________________
http://www.esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 499
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Konrad,

Let's attempt to clarify this in terms that don't require a doctorate in astronomy. Smile

Michael Sternbach wrote: Apr 22, 2014 7:09 pm
Quote:
Any particular position on the ecliptic (or zodiacal degree) will reach its individual highest altitude (culmination) when reaching the meridian. But (more often than not), there are at the same time other degrees of the zodiac already or still in higher altitudes relative to the horizon (as the online planetarium demonstrates).


Konrad replied: Apr 22, 2014 9:58 pm
Quote:
I'm not sure I understand you here, Michael. How can a degree reach its highest point at the Meridian but then, potentially, be higher when the degrees that rise after it reach the Meridian?


No, it can't be! Once a degree has reached the meridian, it will, of course, descend. But at the same time, there can be other degrees which are already beyond the meridian and therefore descending but still linger in greater altitudes than the degree currently at the MC.

You can have the opposite situation as well, but we will limit ourselves to the case you are referring to.

To illustrate further, once again, go to:

http://in-the-sky.org/skymap.php

The default should be London. Again, toggle on “ecliptic” and “Alt/Az grid”, and navigate in order to have south in front of you.

Set the time to April 24 2014, 02:00. You will see Saturn almost culminating (he would be exactly at the meridian 8 minutes later, but the program only allows for 30 minutes jumps). Position the mouse on Saturn to ascertain his altitude; on top of the page you will read about 22.8°. - Note that, on the right, Mars has an altitude of about 27.7°, however!

Now, set the time to 00:00 (refresh the page after doing this and navigate to south again, if necessary): Mars has just passed the meridian, he is still about 34.6° high.

Of course, these planets are not exactly on the ecliptic, and also, the simple measurements using the mouse are not very accurate – but I'm sure you get the idea.

Cheers
Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1482

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael Sternbach wrote:
Yes, I do look at the MC when delineating a chart – as a sensitive point signifying the native's goals and vocation.


Thanks, I wasn't sure if you were implying that you ignore the MC-IC as not being useful, so thought I'd clarify as I wasn't sure of anyone who ignores the MC so would be interesting if you had just used the nonagesimal alone for everything the MC would do. As someone who uses both the Placidus and Equal house cusps the most dominantly, I like to look at both.

Quote:
I see I need to break this down further:


Thanks for breaking this down, both in reply to me and to others. Actually the celestial mechanics wasn't the issue this time, as I understood this already. I think I was understanding something different by 'highest' when I read this first. I see you mean the planet with the most altitude at a given moment will be the one 90º from the ascendant.

Quote:
In the equal house system, the 10th house cusp has the same relation to the zodiacal ascendant like the MC to the equatorial ascendant. Why then do we mingle these two systems for deriving our quadrants?


So far I'm following all the celestial mechanics (I think) but I am still not sure where the issue lies. Hopefully you can stick with me and help me out.

I think perhaps that you are viewing the matter abstractly as being a series of concentric circles and that we're using the 'axis' of one circle and comparing to the 'axis' of another circle and that this is where the apples and pears bit is coming from? This is an assumption but I want to be sure I understand that this is your position.

But really what I was thinking of is more imagining if I am standing and watching a planet that rises and sets as I think this is more 'true' to the heart of astrology. I would observe that planet rise in the sky until it can't rise anymore and then it would set. And really our quadrant based house systems are just based on this observation, as I mentioned in my previous post. This isn't really comparing apples and pears, it is not that we are abstractly dealing with two circles which are agnostic to one another, we are dealing with observation of the sky from a fixed position on the earth. Real life physics is what mixes all these circles and we triangulate against these circles to track planets as they appear to rise and set. This is the whole premise of quadrant based house systems, at least as I understand them.
A whole other philosophical premise, not predicated on imagining observing planets rise and set, is in division of just the ecliptic alone, which has its own advantages of course but is philosophically different to dividing using the quadrants. So with this system then we can observe the position of a planet along the ecliptic (assuming 0 latitude obviously) highest in the sky at that particular moment. Imagining we have two planets, one 90º from the ascendant, we know that this planet has the most altitude in the night sky at that particular moment in time, but we may see another planet at the MC and we know that this planet is the highest it can culminate. Both sets of information is useful. And both are 'real'. If we decide to draw arbitrary divisions of the night sky based on one or based on the other is no more or less real, and we're not comparing apples and pears in doing so. Both are real and valid divisions.

So I guess in answer to your question:
Quote:
Now, why do we derive our (unequal) house systems based on the ascension of the zodiac but on the highest point of the equator? Isn't this mixing apples and pears?


The reason would be that in one form of division we are observing what is the point with the greatest altitude in the sky (90º from the ascendant, and so an equal division perhaps), and in another we are observing what is the point at which a given planetary body may culminate.
This makes particular sense to me if we ignore secondary motion from this equation and were to imagine that planets are static at the points they are at in the ecliptic. In this sense we're observing two things, the "life cycle" of a given planet in that 24 hours - namely the point at which it can rise no more in the night sky at that part of the ecliptic, and then also a more static momentary thing, namely, which part of the ecliptic has the most altitude.

Both are valid surely? We're not comparing apples and pears, we're just looking at two different things.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1482

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Konrad wrote:
Ha ha, right yeah, thanks Larxene. It's gone right over my head that one. I have subscribed to that Astronomy course you mentioned a while back, so when it begins again, I will get it, I'm sure. Smile


I think the recent example with Saturn and Mars will probably make this much clearer but if not, you need to remember that the ecliptic isn't static in regards how much is rising over the horizon. In other words at certain times of the day you might have only a bit of the ecliptic rising over the horizon, in other words the highest point of the ecliptic, in terms of altitude, is quite low at those moments, and a few hours later the highest altitude that the ecliptic can reach may be much greater.

With that in mind, the MC is showing the area in the sky at which any planet along the ecliptic at that position will no longer be able to reach a higher altitude. Which isn't to say that other planets, at other parts of the ecliptic, couldn't reach a higher altitude at other times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 499
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael Sternbach wrote: Apr 21, 2014 10:43 am
Quote:
I guess there are traditional astrologers on this forum who are using various kinds of directions with equal house systems. I would love to hear about your experiences!


james_m replied: Apr 22, 2014 5:21 pm
Quote:
i am not going to box myself into whether i am a this or the other type of astrologer, but i do use different types of directions, including primary directions. i just don't rely on data to house cusps unless it is data to the angle cusps. i guess that means i will consider data to 4 house cusps, as opposed to 12. that means i weigh the ascendant and midheaven axis much greater then i do any other house cusp gotten via some sort of integration of the 2 different axis.


Actually, to be precise, this means that you are applying directions to only two equal house cusps. Thanks anyway for your contribution but I'm still hoping for some forum members using primary or other directions in conjunction with an equal house system (no pun intended) willing to share their experiences.

james_m wrote: Apr 22, 2014 5:21 pm
Quote:
fwiw - there are very few astrologers discussing primary directions, let alone the different options they use to arrive at any conclusions they offer on the data. it is sort of like saying i sailed across the ocean on a sunny day without mentioning what the wind or waves were doing.. apparently since so few are discussing pd's we are supposed to be content just being told this is the pd that i used to arrive at this conclusion!


I agree, useful literature on primary directions seems to be rare and far between. In this regard, I understand that Martin Gansten has written a noteworthy book on the subject that I will need to look at sometime soon. I wonder if it mentions equal houses?

Michael Sternbach wrote: Apr 21, 2014 10:43 am
Quote:
Quite recently, scientist started questioning the value of statistical methods themselves.


james_m wrote: Apr 22, 2014 5:21 pm
Quote:
can it be replicated in some type of statistical study? does it matter? is it just someone's word against someone else? this brings me to your last quote down below.. is there some article you'd like to share discussing this? how recent is 'recent'? Thanks.


James, quite an amazing article about scientists finding fault with certain hitherto generally accepted foundations of statistical analysis was published just a couple of months ago, however in a German “subscribers only” science magazine; probably not of too much help here. I will try to find something available for free and in English on this study - if successful, I will post accordingly on this thread.

Regards
Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 1 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated