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 Previous  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
Atlantean



Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 396

Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Mark,

Re: "I find it totally implausible that astrologers have all been wandering in the dark for over 2000 years before two guys came up with the Topocentric house system in the mid 1960s."

No one has said astrologers were "wandering in the dark". In fact, Placidus is usually very close to Topocentric...so as I see it... people have been using "approximated Topocentric" for a very, very long time. (and with suitably good results)

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


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5018
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Atlantean wrote:
Quote:
No one has said astrologers were "wandering in the dark". In fact, Placidus is usually very close to Topocentric...so as I see it... people have been using "approximated Topocentric" for a very, very long time. (and with suitably good results)


Hello James,

James Neely suggested that mathematically the reality is the other way round. Topocentric houses are simply one of a number of possible Placidian approximation methods which are based upon a spatial semi-arc trisection. These all approximate the temporal semi-arc trisection used in the exact method ie Placidus.

Although it may the case that Placidus goes back to medieval astrologers like Ibn Ezra it doesn't seem to have gained any real popularity until the revival of astrology in 19th century. That seems largely because the last astrologer of the traditional age, before astrology sunk into relative obscurity in England during the 18th century, was John Partridge who was a passionate and powerful advocate for Placidus over the Regiomontanus house system. Hence when astrology revived his writings had a disproportionate influence on astrological thinking.

This still leaves about 2000 years of horoscopic astrology before Placidus became widely popular. In particular we had medieval astrologers mostly using Alcabitius and early modern astrologers using Regiomontanus.

I take it your view is still that anything before the widespread adoption of the Placidus system was a much less accurate kind of astrology?

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly


Last edited by Mark on Fri May 22, 2015 5:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Atlantean



Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 396

Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Paul,

Re: "The great difference of course between the fifth house and ukraine is that I can go and point at Ukraine."

If you have a well-timed horoscope, you can point at the 5th House with much more specificity than you can point to Ukraine. Additionally, Ukraine changes throughout history...so it would depend also on WHEN you decided to point at "Ukraine." 5th House cusp? It's not going anywhere, unless one means by a dynamic system such as directions or progressions...

Re: "They are nothing more or less than mathematical abstractions we use to symbolically divide up the sky in whatever way we wish to employ."

Patently false. (in the case of Topocentric) They are mathematically definable with great precision and are not philosophical, they are backed up by the time-table of real events in real lives. If anything, they are defined anti-philosophically. Philosophically implies some ivory tower, intellectual approach that doesn't take the specifics of reality into account. For Topocentric, it's the direct opposite... we're INSISTING on a real connection between a point in the sky we are calling a cusp and with dated-events that activate that exact point at events that match the nature of that House.

Re: "In every single chart, there is an equal house fifth cusp, a placidus one, a topocentric one and every other one besides."

Yes, but my point is that only one of them has a demonstrable connection with hard reality. ie. only one of them (unless under specific circumstance they happen to be the same) will show activations of the nature of the House across the complete ACTUAL list of events that have transpired in the life. For general delineation purposes, one could use many different House systems with varying success; HOWEVER, if looking for activations of that cuspal point to correspond to real lives and real events, we have Topocentric and various approximations.

Re: "We just choose which one we want to see based on our own biases, preferences or philosophies."

Again, you are trying to imply a philosophical perspective to something that is actually the result of cold mathematics and statistics. Had OTHER locations been suitably "responsive" (astrological cusps corresponding to themes of events), Topocentric would have been described to satisfy THOSE locations instead.

Re: "Would the real fifth house cusp please stand up?"

The Topocentric 5th is humble for a hero, and didn't stand up to draw attention to himself. He stood with all of those contending and wisely waited for the others to first fall, leaving him alone. Wink

Re: "My question wasn't "what are the significations of the fifth" which you describe, but rather "why are those the significations of the fifth"?

But for finding the cusps, the WHAT of the 5th House is what is important... not the WHY. As long as the WHAT stays the same (such as children for the 5th), it really doesn't matter in the least as to WHY. The WHAT will allow us to know which events should line up with which cusps. You're actually arguing like the anti-astrology critics who REFUSE to look at ANY practical proof until some MECHANISM is given. We would like to know WHY...but for this, it is the WHAT that leads to the specifics of where that House cusp is...

Re: "We have to look at the fact that it is in an aspectual relationship to the ascendant..."

Hardly. The 5th House (a mundane Trine) might very well be in a (zodiacal) square to the Ascendant. The events happen as a result of mathematical activations of ANGLES, not because of synchronicity with the inherent interdynamics of the themes of the Houses. If a person has a poor self-evaluation (2nd House), it dynamically relates with one's ability to give love (5th House), expect love (11th House), and the evaluation of and by others (8th House). These houses have this THEMATIC dynamic relationship...however, if we're looking for actual events relating to those Houses, a 2nd House planet may be TRINING a 5th House planet and therefore generally benefitting the interaction. If an astrologer is seeing these as stressful because of the MUNDANE connection of the Houses over their actual angular separation, I must say (imo) that astrologer is reading too many books and face-timing far too few clients. Wink

Re: "Right, that is indeed what you're stating. I am stating the converse."

But I have analyzed THOUSANDS of events for appropriate Primary Directions and Secondary Progressions to House cusps and have found those house cusps are reliably activated to just minutes of arc by appropriate planets at the actual timing of events using Topocentric.

Re: "Unlike the Ukraine or PI, which can only have one place or one value, the fifth house is simply a mathematical division of the sky. And to a large extent, any mathematical division will do."

I've heard that before, though it's usually been stated as "close enough for government work." A guy with a spray-paint can IS ABLE to paint your Ferrari. I recommend against it.

Re: "...viewing the world through different lenses will alter how we view that world, but it won't alter the world itself."

Phone Einstein. There went quantum theory. The observer always (potentially) affects that observed...

Re: "IN order to do it, let me ask, what is a 5th house cusp?"

The 5th House cusp is that point which is activated reliably (too often and too specifically for it to be coincidence and regularly enough that it is basically expected) by Primary Direction, Secondary Progression, etc. at times of events of the nature of the 5th House. It is NOT the beginning of the 5th House, merely the strongest point (relative to the themes of the 5th). I realize that elements of this are MY definition and not necessarily matching others in the specifics.

Re: "But let's take the example that I wish to track pairs of planetary hours via the cusps, in this example Placidus works best. Every single house cusp represents the movement of a planet as it passes through two planetary hours. In order words if I wish to divide based on times of rising, culminating and setting, then Placidus is accurate. Topocentric isn't."

You're making the "given" part of your argument mandate Placidus. In terms of the happenings of events, a planet passing through two planetary hours, is irrelevant. Those Placidus cusps are only approximately where the activations are at events. If you want the House system unrelated to events, I guess any of them will likely "work."

Re: "I use a technique called profections whereby at the solar return the focus comes to a given sign (and its ruler and the planets in that sign etc). And really this involves the movement by whole sign houses, as the topic of the house for which that sign is on the cusp determines the nature of the profection. For example, when I was in a fourth place/house profection year, determined by profection forwards one sign/house incrementally each year until that year, the fourth house, indicated changes in my home. Which indeed was the case. If I were to have used a quadrant based house system, then I would not have been in a fourth place profection, and the symbolism wouldn't have held as clearly."

I try to stay away from any systems which are trying to find a theme over grand periods of time. Life is continuous, but made up of discrete cognitive developmental events. In your example, if you had major changes in your home, there will be appropriate Primary Directions and Secondary Progressions to just minutes of arc (ie. tightly articulated/delineated in time) if we are using the correct birthtime. (and Topocentric)

Re: "But as far as I know, nobody has released all the case notes and blind studies which demonstrated Topocentric cusps, so, for me, the claim is just a claim. It may be an accurate one of course, I don't know. I only recently (a couple of years ago) created a little program for myself which calculates Topocentric cusps so that I could test them myself (as up until then I was just using astrodienst). So far they seem no more relevant to me than other cusps, but then I do not do primary directions via Topocentric cusps so I'm completely open minded that they may be better for the job. But I also am aware of others who have tried Placidean cusps and compared to Topocentric and have stated they prefer Placidus."

I am not trying to invoke the "expert" argument, I am only stating that I have looked (literally thousands of times) at what I am discussing... ie. Primary Directions and Secondary Progressions at the timing of actual events in actual birth charts using Topocentric Houses. My point merely being that I have EXAMINED this particular evidence. I honestly don't think that a single other person making any comments in this particular element of the discussion have examined Primary Directions (with Carl Kühr's necessary refinements and Topocentric House), so it makes a relatively weak position from which to argue. From that point of view, one can ONLY argue philosophically...and thusly, we have just jointly discovered something. Wink

Re: "Right, so says the person advocating Topocentric. The Huber school insist of course that accuracy can be found with Koch instead - their Huber clock, we're reliably informed, only works best with Koch."

From ANY of the well-timed charts that I have (and attendant event lists), I can only say that Koch performs abysmally.

Re: "What's a boy to do when everyone is sure that their house system is the house system?"

Look at it statistically! If events are happening left and right and the relevent cusps ARE NOT being reliably activated, guess what? Those aren't the cusps!!!

Re: "That's very compelling. Did he publish his results somewhere and demonstrate his comparisons between all the popular house systems?"

No, but he had noted a discrepancy with Regiomontanus that couldn't be explained. ie. the aspects did not have consistent orbs and were larger than he felt they should be, demonstrating no strong connection between cusp and events. After examining Topocentric, he came to the conclusion (which matches my continued observation) that Primary Directions in this system always mature in under 0° 11' (of arc) for the conj/opp and under 0° 6' (of arc) for all other aspects and that the Topocentric House cusps are always reliable in well-timed horoscopes.

Re: "But one thing I would say, that is worth saying in bold: We are not comparing and contrasting Topocentric Cusps in this thread. This thread is more broadly about equal houses vs quadrant houses."

That was the point actually of my comment. From my examination, quadrant houses (Topocentric in particular) function "correctly", while equal houses do not give "hot-spots" for cusps, so if having the cusps BE hot-spots (in Primary Directions, Secondary Progressions, etc.), Topocentric gets you there.

Re: "Obviously you have drawn your line in the sand at quadrant house cusps and that's fine, Topocentric in particular. But I want to make sure we don't deviate and start talking exclusively of Topocentric houses."

I would never for one minute even suggest that, Paul. Topocentric shines best exactly WHEN it is compared to other systems.

Peace

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



Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 396

Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Mark,

Re: "James Neely suggested that mathematically the reality is the other way round. Topocentric houses are simply one of a number of possible Placidian approximation methods..."

At events, the cusps that are activated (Primary Directions / Secondary Progressions) are the Topocentric ones. What approximates what is a circular argument. I have examined thousands of events and it is (across entire event lists) the Topocentric Houses that are activated to just minutes of arc. The mathematician in me (double-scholarship in mathematics, honors) sees this statistical reliability of activation as a blanket statement as to exactly WHERE those cusps are...

Re: "I take it your view is still that anything before the widespread adoption of the Placidus system was a much less accurate kind of astrology?"

It depends on what stick we are using to measure accuracy. In a delineation mode, MANY House systems could be virtually identical for all intents and purposes. Using Topocentric doesn't suddenly make the Red Sea part and everything is crystal clear... it just ADDS the points (Topocentric House cusps) that WILL be reliably activated at correctly-themed (to the House) events and with very, very scant orbs! This adds significantly more to the picture, since we now have added eight more cusps that are reactive like the Asc/Dsc/MC/IC, though relative to the themes of the intermediate Houses.

To me, the Ascendant and Midheaven are in the exact right places. Topocentric just clears up the slop in the location of the intermediate Houses... it's nothing more dramatic than that. Wink

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


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1522

Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Atlantean

I guess we're going off topic here, we can revive that other thread and post there if you prefer?

As to the these points, I'll just comment quickly on three things.

Atlantean wrote:

Patently false. (in the case of Topocentric) They are mathematically definable with great precision and are not philosophical, they are backed up by the time-table of real events in real lives. If anything, they are defined anti-philosophically.


I don't mean to see philosophical as antithetical to practical, and not an ivory tower approach, rather that there's a philosophy or, if you prefer, a thinking process, behind the approach we take with house systems and why we divide what we do and where. The same is true for Topocentric, though I'm not sure what it is. This doesn't mean that they are not effective. As a correlate, there's a philosophy behind domicile rulership, but it never stopped Mars being an effective and obvious ruler of Aries, noticeable in our charts.

But whereas you say the why is not important I think it is important as from this we can see that actually there's more than one way to define the fifth and indeed to use it.

Quote:
Re: "That's very compelling. Did he publish his results somewhere and demonstrate his comparisons between all the popular house systems?"

No


Right.

So, for me, strong claims are just that. Strong claims. Not proofs or evidence. I appreciate you have experienced otherwise. However I have strong doubts that anyone in normal latitudes would experience significant deviations from house cusps between placidus and topocentric cusps, so much so that you could use discrepancy to then reverse engineer a mathematical formula for deriving house cusps which, bizarrely, work in the acrtic circle, despite none of the test cases being observed there as they were all from his own experiences in a given week.

But, as I say, your experiences prove to you that there is something worthwhile with topocentric cusps, but it just doesn't prove to me or imply to me that therefore other definitions of the fifth house are suddenly without merit.

So in relation to "Look at it statistically!" - I'd love to, but nobody provided the statistics to demonstrate the claims of Topocentric houses in the first place. And from my own personal observation having been able to observe Topocentric houses lately I cannot say I've seen them stand out against Placidus. But, as I say, this may be because I do not use primary directions with topocentric cusps. In addition, the 'events' involved need to be symbolically tied in a way which is meaningful to my understanding of astrology, and in some of the examples I have seen with this, I cannot say I would connect the symbolism of the planet/house/aspect in the way that is often used - but I confess it may be very applicable and meaningful to others, I cannot say, only that for me some of the connections are more that there is a connection (even if it means employing the most minor of minor aspects), regardless of what it is.

Either way, the important point here is that we do not have this exceptional case study which convinced the authors of Topocentric houses of their efficacy - and so we cannot back up their claims or examine them or study them in any way.

Quote:
You're making the "given" part of your argument mandate Placidus. In terms of the happenings of events, a planet passing through two planetary hours, is irrelevant. Those Placidus cusps are only approximately where the activations are at events. If you want the House system unrelated to events, I guess any of them will likely "work."


Yes I'm deliberately doing so to demonstrate that why you may wish to employ a fifth house cusp may not be why I, or some other person does, and that filtering my data in such a way so as to highlight this information may be perfectly acceptable for me with my use-case. You, with another use case for houses, may need to employ some other house system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 519
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark, re: yours Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:25 am

Quote:
I have no time to check references for you today but I seem to recall the Roman astrologer Firmicus Maternus (4th century CE) seems to have adopted an approach that looks very like he considered the nonagesimal as the 10th house cusp rather than the MC. It seems likely Firmicus was working with equal houses.


Very interesting. I would appreciate the reference.

Do you know any other ancients (possibly or definitely) using Equal (in the common modern sense)?

What is the oldest reference to Equal that you know of?

Certainly Ptolemy would seem to be familiar with it in his Tetrabiblos?

Quote:
I am not at all convinced by your suggestion that earliest Egyptian (Alexandrian?) astrologers all relied on the nonagesimal to define the 10th house. It seems far more plausible to me that they used Whole sign houses rather than Equal as their default approach to begin with.


Quote:
This was long before astrology was reintroduced back into western Europe in the 12th century. So it wasn't that the western Europeans changed the understanding of the MC. They simply faithfully copied the tradition passed on to them by later Perso-Arabic astrology.


If my recollection of Wulfing von Rohr's idea is right, the confusion between the Nonagesimal and the MC would have happened when the house system was first transferred from Egypt to Greece. (About the Egyptian origin of the wheel of houses Franz Boll talks in his Sphaera.)

But to clarify, I am no proponent of this theory, so far. I just find it - thought provoking. Smile

Regards
Michael


Last edited by Michael Sternbach on Sun May 04, 2014 1:34 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 519
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul, re: yours Thu May 01, 2014 3:41 pm

Quote:
I have to say I have never thought too much about it until this topic (so thank you for that) except that I find myself interested in planets which are at the equal 10th house cusp, by transit and natally, in terms of describing a sense of vocation, and whilst I do the same thing for the MC I guess I'm, not consciously, seeing this as more like career.


I don't mean to be fussy, but personally, I tend to assume that it's actually the other way around: The Nonagesimal is describing the career, or job, the MC the vocation. Confused

But then again, it may not always be easy to distinguish between the two, in practical terms.

I would appreciate discussion of this question on this thread, backed up by further chart examples, if possible.

I find your philosophical thoughts regarding vocation and career etc. very profound. Thumbs up Thanks, Paul.

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



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 519
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Mon May 05, 2014 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rod wrote: Fri May 02, 2014 1:24 am
Quote:
I think a good way to look at this issue is to take into account the views of Dane Rudhyar in his article
> http://www.khaldea.com/rudhyar/astroarticles/housesrepresent.php\

Quote:
The Placidian system of house division — based on the diurnal and nocturnal movement of every degree of the zodiac — is today the system used by all but a very few astrologers, and tables of houses for other systems of house division are not generally available. Yet the Campanus method is more in accord with the type of understanding of the framework of houses which I have attempted to convey, as it is more basically a method of division of the space itself which surrounds the new-born. The publication of a complete set of Campanus Tables would indeed be most welcome.

The most essential point, at present, is not, however, which method is best to use — though some are, no doubt, far more logical than others. The problem is far deeper and reaches to the very roots of one's conception of astrology; here again, the greatest obstacle to a consistent and really significant approach is the idea that the planets and stars are directly and literally "influencing" individuals by mysterious waves or rays of force which strike our bodies as do light or radio beams.


I found these comments to be extremely revealing, not to mention down right logical with regards to the Campanus house system.


Thanks Rod for this. I meant to reply earlier but other fronts kept me a little busy. Smile

Rudhyar is always interesting. Even where I don't agree with his conclusions, he makes me think.

Yes, for Rudhyar the wheel of houses was a division of space. He therefore favoured the Campanus system which is based on the spatial division of the prime vertical.

Personally, the problem I have with Campanus is that the houses appear even more distorted than with most other systems. Mark mentioned this earlier, too.

Equal is another system based on a division of space, here it's the ecliptic (the zodiac) itself we are dividing. Sweet and simple.

Placidus, however, is a time-based system, and this difference is worth noting.

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



Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 396

Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Paul,

Re: "I don't mean to see philosophical as antithetical to practical..."

Perhaps not... but the mathematician in me recognizes that, in this discussion of House systems, PHILOSOPHICAL thinking will be perpetually unresolvable. ie. there are as many philosophical positions possible as there are people, basically...

Re: "...a thinking process, behind the approach we take with house systems and why we divide what we do and where..."

That is partly my point, actually. The Houses ARE where they are. They are findable! (They ARE where they are, not necessarily where we might want them to be.) The WHY behind it (again) is not as important as the WHAT. We might have the most elegant rationalization possible for a particular House system. If many events happen and those cusps (that relate to the event) sit unaspected, sorry, that's not where the House cusps ARE. We can be apoligist and say we weren't looking for active points to be aspected at events, but that goes contrary to virtually every other look into Astrology, where this-aspecting-that correlates to some event, where the aspect and the event happen in the same time-frame. If one doesn't expect any "reactivity" from the cusps, then might as well put the cusps anywhere, they're only serving as bookends. Wink

Re: "...but it never stopped Mars being an effective and obvious ruler of Aries, noticeable in our charts."

Wasn't it on this very website that a lengthy discussion went on about Pluto (or perhaps Uranus) as potential ruler of Aries? If Mars' rulership is that "obvious" as you have stated, there could/should never have been a long topic about Pluto-Aries. One person would have put forth Pluto-Aries...and everyone else would have buried them in evidence... IF it's truly THAT obvious.

Re: "But whereas you say the why is not important I think it is important as from this we can see that actually there's more than one way to define the fifth and indeed to use it."

Yes, I can see that the definition has come to take on certain "nuances." When I referred to cusps of intermediate Houses, what *I* meant was "here is the location where relevant planets will aspect to just minutes of arc and will relate to the event by the inherent meaning of the House in question." Realizing that this precision (tight orb) and reliability of aspect (across entire event lists) means statistically that it is aligned beyond possible coincidence. If one isn't wanting this reactivity of the Houses (for some reason), then there is nothing to refute where you (arbitrarily) decide to put the Houses... you can have 13 instead of 12 and start them arbitrarily from any point of the zodiac...

Re: (relative to Marr's not having published his study) Right.

Not publishing it does not mean that it wasn't done statistically correct, nor does it mean that the conclusions are meaningless. As I am putting forth that it's continuously replicatable, it's not such a big deal that Marr never took the time/effort to publish his findings (other than to summarize)...as I am aware that Marr had difficulty getting some of his gems (books) published at all as it was...and they are some of the finest, thought-inspiring astrology books that I have in my collection. (at one time over 300 books!)

Re: "However I have strong doubts that anyone in normal latitudes would experience significant deviations from house cusps between placidus and topocentric cusps..."

If so, then you've not been listening, I am afraid. The Primary Directions mature in under 0° 11' of arc. Using Placidus, even in relatively normal latitudes makes it so that they don't mature with such a specific measurement. So, which is more logical... a system that always reacts with great precision (ie. all aspects maturing in just minutes of arc) or a system that introduces larger margins of error? This should answer itself...

Re: "But, as I say, your experiences prove to you that there is something worthwhile with topocentric cusps, but it just doesn't prove to me or imply to me that therefore other definitions of the fifth house are suddenly without merit."

Correct. If one's idea of the 5th House were to be "a relatively undefined space between the 4th and 6th House", it's pretty much open to each person's interpretation, ad nauseam. I am trying to cater to those whose definition of the 5th House cusp is "the precisely-defined power point of a House, which shows reactivity to planetary aspects at times of important events of the manner of the theme of the House and does so with relatively high reliability across entire event lists."

Re: "Either way, the important point here is that we do not have this exceptional case study which convinced the authors of Topocentric houses of their efficacy - and so we cannot back up their claims or examine them or study them in any way."

Again, that was HOW the whole Topocentric House system was FOUND... by looking at well-timed horoscopes and seeing where the Primary Directed points at events actually WERE, as opposed to where some arbitrary mathematics just happens to leave them... This, THEN led to the mathematical algorithm that would place them (mathematically) where they actually were discovered to be (physically). Their study is infinitely replicatable. If one has (examples of) very tightly-timed births, then the Topocentric Houses WILL be reactive in the manner I have described. To see this, requires LOOKING... nothing more.

Each will have to choose for himself how important this precision locating of the intermediate House cusps is... For my satisfaction, Paul, I really don't even care if you use Houses at all or if you use three really large Houses that you call Moe, Larry, and Curly.

As the original post was seeking commentary based on experience, remaining silent about something I have seen repeated literally thousands of times would be a serious dereliction of duty. Wink

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


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1522

Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Atlantean wrote:

Perhaps not... but the mathematician in me recognizes that, in this discussion of House systems, PHILOSOPHICAL thinking will be perpetually unresolvable. ie. there are as many philosophical positions possible as there are people, basically...


Yes, that's true. But for me you have to remember I do not automatically assume that it is true that there is only one fifth house cusp, for me there are as many fifth house cusps as there are contexts and philosophies for determining them.

Quote:
The WHY behind it (again) is not as important as the WHAT.


Not important to you. I understand that. They are important to me because it demonstrates that the context of a house cusp does not rest solely upon your conditions for determining what the house cusp is. Again, to repeat my previous point, it is about recognising that there is a context or, if you prefer, a use case, for why we are looking at a house cusp in the first place. For you that may be for determining events via primary directions, and that's fine, for you, and for your use case. But it does not mean or suggest that:
A) There are no other use cases
B) What is good for your use case is good for mine

Quote:
e can be apoligist and say we weren't looking for active points to be aspected at events, but that goes contrary to virtually every other look into Astrology, where this-aspecting-that correlates to some event, where the aspect and the event happen in the same time-frame.


Actually, it really doesn't. For example I may be looking for a house cusp as a significator for a certain life theme. How I determine what that house cusp should be does not rest upon whether or not topocentric primary directions correlate it to events as understood by a certain astrologer or astrologers or astrology programs.

Quote:
If one doesn't expect any "reactivity" from the cusps, then might as well put the cusps anywhere, they're only serving as bookends.


Or they just serve something else than what you're looking at them for.

Again, for example when I'm looking at equal house cusps, I do not give a damn whether primary directions correlate them to events. That is not the reason I am using them.

Quote:
Wasn't it on this very website that a lengthy discussion went on about Pluto (or perhaps Uranus) as potential ruler of Aries? If Mars' rulership is that "obvious" as you have stated, there could/should never have been a long topic about Pluto-Aries. One person would have put forth Pluto-Aries...and everyone else would have buried them in evidence... IF it's truly THAT obvious.


No, you've grossly misunderstood that thread. The main proponent of the thread (Mark) was suggesting that Uranus has a link to Aries, or more in common with Aries, than with Aquarius. I believe the only other person strongly finding resonance with this theory was myself. Both myself and Mark stressed several times throughout the thread that such a relationship would not, however, be rulership. This was said repeatedly and a mini-discussion about what we mean by the terms took place. It's still an interesting thread if you wish to read it.

Quote:
If one isn't wanting this reactivity of the Houses (for some reason), then there is nothing to refute where you (arbitrarily) decide to put the Houses... you can have 13 instead of 12 and start them arbitrarily from any point of the zodiac...


Why would that be? Choosing to mathematically divide a series of circles based on a given criterion and noting that dividing the same circles from some other criterion yields different results is not the same as thinking "oh look those were different, sure I may as well put them anywhere I want".

Every single house system divides some great circle(s). That is very different than simply putting them wherever you want.

Quote:
Not publishing it does not mean that it wasn't done statistically correct, nor does it mean that the conclusions are meaningless.


No but then I never even remotely suggested as much. Instead you asked me to go check the statistics, I asked were they published (so that I can check them) and you replied no. One wonders then how I might go check them. I could try to replicate the 'experiment' that originally led to the discovery of the topocentric house system, with similar claims for empirical testing, but then, again, that was never published either.

I'd love to test the statistics. Where were they published so I can do so?

Btw, for clarity, my point wasn't in relation to Marr at all, but in relation to the original proponents of the Topocentric house system who claimed to have discovered it empirically and worked out a formula post-factum.

The claims go that all the other house systems were tested and they didn't work as well as Topocentric and this was shown empirically. So far all that's happened is that it was stated. It may be true. It may not be.

Quote:
Re: "However I have strong doubts that anyone in normal latitudes would experience significant deviations from house cusps between placidus and topocentric cusps..."

If so, then you've not been listening, I am afraid. The Primary Directions mature in under 0° 11' of arc.


You seem to have misunderstood my point. Let me clarify. THe claim goes that by examining events, that the topocentric house system was reverse engineered as it was based on these empirical findings. My point is that I struggle to imagine how anyone could, in normal latitudes, have OBSERVED the house cusps through empirical means and then retrospectively invented an algorithm which yields them and still claim that they are sufficiently different from other house systems (like Placidus). I struggle to believe it.

Quote:
Using Placidus, even in relatively normal latitudes makes it so that they don't mature with such a specific measurement.


What is their orb of inaccuracy at the latitude that you live in?

Quote:
Each will have to choose for himself how important this precision locating of the intermediate House cusps is... For my satisfaction, Paul, I really don't even care if you use Houses at all or if you use three really large Houses that you call Moe, Larry, and Curly.


Right, but then, I never was under any impression that you would care what houses I use, why would you. I didn't think this discussion was about what houses I use or not use?

SImilarly I don't mind if you use Topocentric houses and have a great old time with them. However just as you feel free to discuss your experiences, I similarly feel equally free to discuss ideas contradictory to your opinions.

Such is life.
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 519
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Idea

I think, a more rewarding approach than playing "Topocentric verses all the others" (which is not the title of this thread, BTW) would be to start thinking about what the different house systems may be particularly good for.

So far what we could write on the blackboard as working hypothesis:


Topocentric and Placidus seem to work particularly fine with primary directions concerning external events.

This makes a lot of sense to me because these systems are time-based, and so are events.


Equal may be depicting the structure of one's inner self (i.e. in the sense of C. G. Jung).


Vehlow-Raman could be read as aspects from/to the ASC (with a "Sun-like" 15° orb extending to either side).


Please contribute your ideas, even if you are not too certain of them. This way we can try to make some progress, and this thread can flow on towards its "omega point" (Teilhard de Chardin).

Thanks
Michael


Last edited by Michael Sternbach on Wed May 07, 2014 10:59 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 519
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark, I recall that you are using both WSH and Vehlow.

I wonder if you have any observations what the two systems are pertaining to, respectively?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5018
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Mark, I recall that you are using both WSH and Vehlow.

I wonder if you have any observations what the two systems are pertaining to, respectively?


Sorry, I must have missed your post. At present I use whole sign houses. However, I regard equal cusps as points of sensitivity within the whole sign houses. Of course these all aspect the ASC anyway.

Another issue that interests me though is the research of Michel Gauquelin in terms of areas of planetary strength. While I do not think the astrological art can be genuinely captured by statistics the results of Gauquelin's findings do make me consider house systems. As you probably know one of his major zones was focused around the ASC. However, it was concentrated above the ASC not below it.

I dont wish to dispose of houses or adopt Dorsan's clockwise derived houses.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Clockwise-House-System-Foundation/dp/1584200952

However, I am interested in house systems that can start above the ASC. So far I am only aware of 3 systems that do this. Namely, Whole Sign, Raman-Vehlow and Sripati.

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 519
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark,

For what it may be worth...

There are three other House Systems that I know of which start from the MC. Here the 1st house can also also extend over the ASC.

Meridian
Morinus
Equal (MC)

Below an example for Meridian.

Michael

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
astrocorreia



Joined: 29 Mar 2015
Posts: 87

Posted: Fri May 22, 2015 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Larxene wrote:
Theoretically, we can use the nonagesimal (reminds me of infinitesimals) to mark the highest part a planet can reach in a native's individual horizon, at which point, the planet's natural qualities become emphasised in that particular individual's life.

[THIS PART WAS EDITED BECAUSE I MADE A MISCONCEPTION.]



Michael,

Mertz observation/speculation is interesting. I have two anecdotal evidence for this, as I was using the Equal House system when working with Maternus's delineation material.

First, I have the MC in the 9th house by the EH system. Indications of education and philosophy is very prominent in my life. At six years old, I spent my free time reading detective novels like Famous Five, Trixie Belden, etc (English was not my native language, but I had a preference for it; I mainly learned it from reading crime novels). I began thinking about the meaning of life around that time. When I was younger I was quite the idealistic and philosophical person; my tendency to philosophise (which got me into questioning the education system) got me in trouble with my friends and teachers.

Even now, I spent my time learning all sorts of things when my peers are already completing school and preparing for their profession. A nerdy person, I dabbled with the Rubik's cube (11 seconds was my best), chess, math, psychology, mechanics and so on. Perhaps the greatest indication is my persistent study of astrology.

The second person I have in mind is Sherloc-- I mean, Arthur Conan Doyle Smile. Using the EH system, he has the MC in the 8th house! Now, presumably we all know he created one of the most popular fictional detectives of all time. When we talk about detectives, we talk about crime, but most importantly, death. He was not originally a writer; his works simply got popular. If the MC was in the 10th, he may have been more prominent as a writer before he started the Holmes series.

Using Whole Signs, his MC would be in the 9th.

Please excuse me for my ramblings. Tongue Out



The picture was from Stellarium, a free open-source software that is very useful for astronomical and astrological enthusiasts alike.


I wouldn`t be surprised if,like me,Mark,Deb,or Tom most people here had theMC in 9th by equal houses. Your life story is just like mine.

I`d look at some celebrities to find out if an MC in 8th or 12th can also bring fame or the traits of the MC planet to the spotlight,given that some people believe the MC in 9th or 11th brings fame because the Sun rejoices in one and the other is the Good Daimon,besides their good aspect to the AC
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 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