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 House System in Renaissance Astrology?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
petosiris



Joined: 08 Oct 2017
Posts: 141

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"Image culminating" won't necessarily be the sign 10 signs from the ascendant and therefore not the nonagesimal.


It will always be in the whole sign approach I described. Either that, or the whole system astrologers used, calling X - Midheaven, is false.

Quote:
I'm absolutely not knocking one or the other or imagining ignorance of ancient astrologers. However, ancient astrologer *did* confuse the two terms and the very quote you used from Geminus is actually a perfect example of that where he's highlighting this confusion.


I think you are contradicting yourself. You either accept that the ancient astrologers were confused/ignorant or doing things out of convenience, or you think they did this deliberately, and if it is the latter there is no confusion (unless of course you meant confusion in the sense that you think quadrants are superior in astrology).

Quote:
If you want culmination, you're talking about the MC degree or sign, but if you're talking about whole sign places or equal places you're not talking about the MC degree or sign. It's one or the other if you want one to be the 10th.


I reserve the right to refer to the rising and culminating signs, as well as to the angular degrees - the Hour-Marker and the ''Nonagesimal'' - MC. The whole Hellenistic tradition refers to them in this way, and they use the terms interchangeably, regardless of Geminos and quadrant house astrologers imagining things in a false way.

Those are not contradictory compared to quadrants, whole signs and equal houses where it is as you say - there can only be one 10th house.

Neither you, nor Geminos decides what astrologers should refer to as the Midheaven. The Midheaven for me is the culminating degree which is always in the culminating image (thus they do not contradict each other ever), so although that image is very powerful, it is most powerful at the exact degree. (Firmicus Maternus uses this principle with equal houses for example.)

Quote:
So the confusion


There is confusion in the mind of Geminos and in quadrant house users. To me the Moon looks like at the Midheaven. Perhaps it looked that way in the minds of the astrologers of old.

I am appalled by the fact that a large number of astrologers and software make circular charts using quadrant house divisions like cross, which is artificial, unnatural, deceptive and not at all indicative of the true placements of the stars.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1522

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

petosiris wrote:
Quote:
"Image culminating" won't necessarily be the sign 10 signs from the ascendant and therefore not the nonagesimal.


It will always be in the whole sign approach I described. Either that, or the whole system astrologers used, calling X - Midheaven, is false.


No, it won't. This is as an astronomical reality. The sign 10 signs from the ascendant is not the culminating place/sign. It sometimes is, but it sometimes isn't. So part of the confusion, and the confusion is yours not mine, is that you think the whole sign 10th is the culminating place. It isn't.

Quote:
I think you are contradicting yourself. You either accept that the ancient astrologers were confused/ignorant or doing things out of convenience, or you think they did this deliberately, and if it is the latter there is no confusion (unless of course you meant confusion in the sense that you think quadrants are superior in astrology).


I have to assume you're not reading what I'm saying petosiris.

Let's get something out of the way first though. The ancient astrologers absolutely were confused or ignorant about certain things - you are hardly contesting this when the very quote you yourself offer is by someone highlighting this very point. I'm confused why you chose the quote unless it was to make some other point - I would advise reading fully the passages you're quoting from to make sure the context is clear.

With that in mind the problem isn't that the major hellenistic authors didn't know what they were doing, but instead that they used terms interchangeably. I've mentioned this several times. That you don't follow this doesn't mean that the authors were confused, it means you're confused about what is being said.

Quote:
I reserve the right to refer to the rising and culminating signs, as well as to the angular degrees - the Hour-Marker and the ''Nonagesimal'' - MC.


You can call it that if you want, but it won't make it actually true. The culminating sign and the MC and Nonagesimal, these all mean something astronomical. The culminating sign is the sign containing the degree of the MC, it is not the 10th whole sign. That's not an opinion, that's how the astronomy works. In same vein you can reserve the right to call the Moon Mars, but it won't mean that the red planet is circling our orbit cos you want to use that terminology. So sure, reserve the right to call what you want anything you like, but the English language and the astronomical terminology already exists - why invent a new language when the English language will do fine?

Quote:
The whole Hellenistic tradition refers to them in this way, and they use the terms interchangeably, regardless of Geminos and quadrant house astrologers imagining things in a false way.


I would like to advise you to read the Geminos book seeing as you quote from him - it's a fascinating read and what you may realise is that Geminos doesn't mention houses at all. Not quadrant houses, not any kind of houses. Now what quadrant house astrologers imagine is not "a false way". Please define what you mean. Astrologers such as Valens describe a porphyry method of house division which is a quadrant division in that it utilises the degree of the MC as its 10th house.

That you apparently don't like this doesn't mean that ancient astrologers didn't employ and were aware of the MC and used it, even if only contextually, for a house system.

[quote The Midheaven for me is the culminating degree which is always in the culminating image (thus they do not contradict each other ever)[/quote]

Yes that's true. It's not the nonagesimal though, and it's also not the whole sign tenth house. Somtimes it will be of course, but not always.

Quote:
There is confusion in the mind of Geminos and in quadrant house users. To me the Moon looks like at the Midheaven. Perhaps it looked that way in the minds of the astrologers of old.


How arrogant.
_________________
"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: Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

...

Smile
_________________
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wade



Joined: 20 Jul 2013
Posts: 87
Location: London, UK

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

petosiris wrote:
I reserve the right to refer to the rising and culminating signs, as well as to the angular degrees - the Hour-Marker and the ''Nonagesimal'' - MC. The whole Hellenistic tradition refers to them in this way, and they use the terms interchangeably, regardless of Geminos and quadrant house astrologers imagining things in a false way.


(bold emphasis mine.)

well, they don't, though, confusing the nonagesimal and the MC. if that's how you're reading it, then it's a function of intentionally reading an incorrect interpretation of the texts under review. and Paul's already gone into detail about Geminos and his decision (or failure, perhaps; other nouns may fit in here if it tells us something about the use of houses at this time) to mention houses at all.
_________________
available for consultations: http://wadecaves.com | hello@wadecaves.com

STA Horary Course - London, September 2019: http://sta.co/london.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
petosiris



Joined: 08 Oct 2017
Posts: 141

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wade wrote:
petosiris wrote:
I reserve the right to refer to the rising and culminating signs, as well as to the angular degrees - the Hour-Marker and the ''Nonagesimal'' - MC. The whole Hellenistic tradition refers to them in this way, and they use the terms interchangeably, regardless of Geminos and quadrant house astrologers imagining things in a false way.


(bold emphasis mine.)

well, they don't, though, confusing the nonagesimal and the MC. if that's how you're reading it, then it's a function of intentionally reading an incorrect interpretation of the texts under review. and Paul's already gone into detail about Geminos and his decision (or failure, perhaps; other nouns may fit in here if it tells us something about the use of houses at this time) to mention houses at all.


Geminos is criticizing them for doing this. Thus they are equating the tenth whole sign with the MC.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1522

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

petosiris wrote:


Geminos is criticizing them for doing this. Thus they are equating the tenth whole sign with the MC.


You clearly haven't read Geminos and that's ok. But as I said above he is not criticising them for equating the tenth whole sign with the MC - we can tell because he doesn't meantion whole sign houses at all - nor indeed any other house system.

Instead he's commenting on how some individuals confuse the nonagesimal with the MC (which, if anything, relates more to equal than whole btw), and that this is wrong and clearly a misunderstanding. Other astrologers subsequently highlight this problem and make sure their students don't make the same mistake.

Your take from this is that this mistake is a great thing and should be repeated against the wishes of Geminos and those other astrologers.
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

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



Joined: 08 Oct 2017
Posts: 141

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:
petosiris wrote:


Geminos is criticizing them for doing this. Thus they are equating the tenth whole sign with the MC.


You clearly haven't read Geminos and that's ok. But as I said above he is not criticising them for equating the tenth whole sign with the MC - we can tell because he doesn't meantion whole sign houses at all - nor indeed any other house system.

Instead he's commenting on how some individuals confuse the nonagesimal with the MC (which, if anything, relates more to equal than whole btw), and that this is wrong and clearly a misunderstanding.


You know what I meant. Which sign do you think is culminating? If the X is always culminating you are thinking about nonagesimal MC.

Quote:
Other astrologers subsequently highlight this problem and make sure their students don't make the same mistake.

Your take from this is that this mistake is a great thing and should be repeated against the wishes of Geminos and those other astrologers.


Oh really? Can you show me where Hermes, Petosiris or Dorotheus do this? Or Zoroaster, when he says to examine the culminating image (similarly to all authors on katarche), why does the text not mention anything about the meridian ''culminating'' image?

Yes, this mistake is not a false doctrine, but a precious and great truth. Anyone who says otherwise has not looked up the sky or at enough nativities.

Quote:
I'm absolutely not knocking one or the other or imagining ignorance of ancient astrologers.


After all you said in your last posts, I really doubt that is the case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1522

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

petosiris wrote:

You know what I meant. Which sign do you think is culminating? If the X is always culminating you are thinking about nonagesimal MC.


It's not about what I think is culminating though. It's what is actually culminating, which is the point of the MC, and if you want a sign that is culminating it would be best to say that it is the sign which contains the MC.

The term "the nonagesimal MC" is complete nonsense however, you're describing two separate things. The nonagesimal and MC are aligned exactly twice in a 24 hour period, that is all.

Quote:
Oh really? Can you show me where Hermes, Petosiris or Dorotheus do this?


I'll ignore the absurd part of the question and take the gist of what you're asking. Will Valens do?
Riley, Book V
"An example: Gemini in the Ascendant, MC in Aquarius when calculated by degree. This X Place includes the Places relevant to action, to rank, and to children. It also includes the Places of Foreign Lands and of the God, since it is found (when calculated by sign) in the IX Place from the Ascendant"

Just to spell it out, he calculates the MC by degree in Aquarius when Gemini is rising. The 'whole sign 10th' of course would be Pisces. But the MC he tell us is in Aquarius, and Valens tells us that the 10th place 'includes' the places relevant to action/rank etc. which shows us that the 10th place is meant to be indicative of the MC, but that so too is in the 9th house because, by whole sign, the MC is in the 9th.

To answer your question then, Valens gives us the example of where the sign of the MC, that is the culminating sign, is not 10 signs from the ascendant, but in this case 9. He's giving us this example precisely to highlight this very point. He gives other examples of where the MC is in the 9th sign.

Maybe he read his Geminos or equivalent.

Quote:
Yes, this mistake is not a false doctrine, but a precious and great truth. Anyone who says otherwise has not looked up the sky or at enough nativities.


Nope, it's just a mistake, one that we can infer was not uncommonly made.
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

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



Joined: 08 Oct 2017
Posts: 141

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul,

When I calculate a chart using whole signs, clearly there are four angles.

When I calculate other house divisions, there are no angles or configuration relationship to the rising image at all, the above quoted MC can fall in the XII sign, so what kind of angle is that? The dodecagon is regarded as weakest or non-existant.

The reason why minor aspects such as semi-sextile do not exist in Hellenistic astrology is because configurations are made by signs via geometrical figures - you have dodecagon (or aversion?), hexagon, tetragon, trigon and the diameter, which is similar to the tetragon.

The reason why the tetragon and diameter are regarded as most powerful by Valens and Petosiris is simply because they are angular. Similarly, the tetragon from the right was considered more powerful because the image upon the tenth is the midheaven.

Quote:
Valens gives us the example of where the sign of the MC, that is the culminating sign, is not 10 signs from the ascendant, but in this case 9. He's giving us this example precisely to highlight this very point. He gives other examples of where the MC is in the 9th sign.


You are quoting Valens, but we do not know whether Hermes or Nechepso or Petosiris intended whole signs out of ignorance or deliberately. It is a very presentist kind of mindset and I would not consider that seriously even for a second. Clearly Valens is quadrant user (and late astrologer who in many ways disagrees with his predecessors) who uses whole signs out of convenience, thinking they work enough. You might notice I did not mention him as an example.

But we can't splash that on the rest of the tradition, especially where you get into huge contradictions like regarding the tenth as such, the configurations I mentioned, the Lot as place problem which you did not answer and a ton of other things we can call as whole sign paradigm, and only one who has not tried to put this into practice can claim that one can use quadrants with Hellenistic astrology (in many places, pun intended, whole signs are required).

Quote:
It's not about what I think is culminating though. It's what is actually culminating, which is the point of the MC, and if you want a sign that is culminating it would be best to say that it is the sign which contains the MC.


The tenth image from the ascendant is culminating, it is clearly and actually the highest point of the ecliptic at the moment, and also in the middle of the sky, which is what mesouranima and midheaven actually mean.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1522

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

petosiris wrote:

When I calculate a chart using whole signs, clearly there are four angles.


There are four angles in every house system. What you're talking about in circles is what the nature is of those four angles.

Quote:

When I calculate other house divisions, there are no angles or configuration relationship to the rising image at all, the above quoted MC can fall in the XII house, so what kind of angle is that? The dodecagon is regarded as weakest or non-existant.


There are indeed angles, the four angles of the Ascendant Descendant MC and IC are not determined by any house system. They exist irrespective of house system. For that matter the nonagesimal and ascendant exists regardless of house system.

My point, which you refuse to want to accept, is that the MC is the culminating degree and the Nonagesimal isn't. But regardless, the two exist irrespective of house system.

Quote:
the Lot as place problem which you did not answer


I've already discussed the Lots with you, I'm not sure what you mean here. We talked about this already.

Quote:
and only one who has not tried to put this into practice can claim that one can use quadrants with Hellenistic astrology.


Him/Her and I suppose Vettius Valens and the other Hellenistic astrologers who use quadrant houses for particularly things like the length of life.

Quote:
The tenth image from the ascendant is culminating, it is clearly and actually the highest point of the ecliptic at the moment, and also in the middle of the sky, which is what mesouranima and midheaven actually mean.


Petosiris there is no point continuing the repeat myself, no matter how many times you say this it won't make the case any stronger. There is nothing further to discuss - the 10th sign is not the culminating sign, I've already provided quotes from hellenistic astrologers who were aware of this and in fact you did too.
The highest point of the sky is the nonagesimal contained in the 10th sign, and that is different from culminating.

But I've already explained this, if you refuse to listen to it or want to believe it that's up to you. It doesn't really matter one way or another to me what you choose to believe.
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

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



Joined: 08 Oct 2017
Posts: 141

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But I've already explained this, if you refuse to listen to it or want to believe it that's up to you. It doesn't really matter one way or another to me what you choose to believe.


I care only for the reader who might get the wrong impression from misguided ridicules on what is a perfectly coherent and valid system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wade



Joined: 20 Jul 2013
Posts: 87
Location: London, UK

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 1:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

petosiris wrote:
The reason why the tetragon and diameter are regarded as most powerful by Valens and Petosiris is simply because they are angular. Similarly, the tetragon from the right was considered more powerful because the image upon the tenth is the midheaven.


what you're inferring here is that Valens marks the square to the right more powerful because, from the vantage point of the ascendant, to the right is the midheaven.

I have to say, this smacks of anachronism to me. it's not to say that Valens didn't say this -- that isn't my point. rather, statements like these are the product of something anthropological. it was a consistent theme throughout Mesopotamia, Babylon, Asia Minor, Upper Africa and Egypt, Rome and Greece, etc., that the right hand of the gods was healing in nature, the left hand destructive in nature. you'd be hard pressed to find an ancient civilisation in the West that did not have a variation on this theme.

as astrologers, a likely cause for this stands in reach: from the northern hemisphere, the heavenly spheres appear to ascend and culminate and descend in rightward motion. connections to divinity by orderly motion weren't far behind this realisation. order against nature has always been seen as underhanded, dark, sinister.

Valens did not introduce a foundational truth by saying that the square to the right (can we not just say 'square' and 'opposition', by the way, instead of the technically accurate yet inaccessible alternatives? I honestly don't know if I'd make it if I tried to get into astrology today, new and newer ways to say something as mundane as 'square' and 'sign' and 'aspect' by the minute!) is more powerful because, from the ascendant, it points upward toward the midheaven. what he did was take a common belief/thought of the time, and teach principles of astrology through it. assigning astrological 'laws' to things seen in the natural world was easy to do, because astrology was really nothing more than the application of symbolic interpretations to cycles found in nature. it isn't the motion toward the midheaven that mattered, and it'd be a disappointment if someone who worked with astrology/symbology took that literally; it was rightward motion that mattered, it was rightward motion that was seen as more forcible and sustained. the strength of rightedness is repeated over and over and over again without any mention of an angle (because, again, that wasn't the point). grab a technique, you'll find it: it's repeated in phases (with the Sun on the midheaven, the superiors are oriental/new in phase to the right, the inferiors are occidental/new in phase to the left), in aspects (dexter/sinister, dominating, etc.), primary directions (which are even named after the primacy of diurnal motion), and even shares a flavour of how upper and lower hemispheres of charts were interpreted (dexter has a more diurnal quality, sinister nocturnal, and with the Sun at the ascendant that relationship becomes more apparent). it was about recognising the principle of accordance with divine will where we see it: in phase, motion, etc.

that Valens said the square and opposition aspects are most powerful because they form angles is fine. they do. mathematical realities are the hero in astrology (which is why you really do not see MC and nonagesimal interchanged). but to imply that Valens expected the heaven to form perfect 90º angles at all times... I don't see how anyone could buy that when he's talking about measuring these angular points (and they are points, mind) by degrees. it would've been useful in interpretation had that been the case at someone's birth, that the angular points formed perfect squares, but it would've been equally as important to understand when the astronomy of the time did not conform to such shapes.

petosiris wrote:
Clearly Valens is quadrant user (and late astrologer who in many ways disagrees with his predecessors) who uses whole signs out of convenience, thinking they work enough. You might notice I did not mention him as an example.


can't get with this either. there's something about the power of number, the symbolism of number, that retains meaning even if not defining the limits of houses. to say he counted signs out of convenience throws the baby out with the bathwater. counting signs was clearly done, but how it was done was best summarised (I think) in guidance from ibn Ezra many centuries on, who said that quadrant division of houses carry most of the weight (two-thirds), and equal house systems impart some of their own meaning (one-third). obviously equal and sign-based systems aren't the same, but it reads to me like ibn Ezra outlined how this quadrant-vs-counting-signs principle had evolved by his time.

petosiris wrote:
I care only for the reader who might get the wrong impression from misguided ridicules on what is a perfectly coherent and valid system.


yes, that is the chief worry of many right now, myself included.
_________________
available for consultations: http://wadecaves.com | hello@wadecaves.com

STA Horary Course - London, September 2019: http://sta.co/london.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1445
Location: California, USA

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The MC/Nonagesimal argument going on here (which I've just quickly scanned) seems to be a semantics argument that "Petosiris" isn't quite getting. Traditionally in astrology a planet is said to be culminating when it's at the MC, the point where the prime meridian intersects the ecliptic. However:

The nonagesimal is the zenith projected on to the ecliptic by an azimuth circle that passes through the north and south ecliptic poles. This projection can be shorter than the distance of the zenith to the intersection of the prime meridian and ecliptic. Traditionally In astrology the nonagesimal isn't called a culmination point, but that point is usually at a higher altitude than the junction of the prime meridian with the ecliptic (the MC). So:

Culmination (an astrological term) = intersection of prime meridian with the ecliptic (MC point)
Highest altitude = the point 90 degrees from the ascendant (Nonagesimal), the ecliptic degree closest to the zenith

It's a historical argument as to which astrologer used which point as the cusp of the 10th house.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
petosiris



Joined: 08 Oct 2017
Posts: 141

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:
The MC/Nonagesimal argument going on here (which I've just quickly scanned) seems to be a semantics argument that "Petosiris" isn't quite getting.


Seems like there is different form of traditional astrology out there that no one knows about.

Quote:
In addition, after finding the Place which has been assigned to Fortune, examine the points square with it and the other aspects, just as with the angles in the natal chart. The Lot itself will be equivalent to the Ascendant and will mean “Life;” the tenth place from it will be equivalent to MC and will mean “Rank;” the seventh will be the Descendant; the fourth IC. - Valens, translation by Mark Riley


Can anyone help me construct quadrant houses from the Lot of Fortune? Could Valens have used quadrants here?

Quote:
Him/Her and I suppose Vettius Valens and the other Hellenistic astrologers who use quadrant houses for particularly things like the length of life.


Actually, that is frequently not the case, length of life included for example:

Quote:
After examining the Ascendant, it is necessary to investigate MC and to determine its ruler; then examine the Descendant and IC in the same way. If <their> are not found at the angles, the rulerships which follow the angles must be examined; if the stars are not in those signs either, the signs which precede the angles must be inspected. (Even if such positions do not possess a great deal of influence over activities and do not allot the maximum length of life, they are nevertheless active.) - Valens, Riley - http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vettius%20valens%20entire.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1268
Location: Malm, Sweden

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Culmination (an astrological term) = intersection of prime meridian with the ecliptic (MC point)
Highest altitude = the point 90 degrees from the ascendant (Nonagesimal), the ecliptic degree closest to the zenith

Or, put slightly differently for the sake of easier comparison: the nonagesimal is that point in the ecliptic which at a given moment has the highest altitude above the horizon (by virtue of the simple fact that it is exactly midway between the rising and setting points). The astronomical MC or culminating point is the point that, at the same moment, has reached its own maximum altitude -- which, for observers in the northern hemisphere, will occur when that point is due south.

That is what 'culminate' means: to reach the highest point of one's own trajectory. Thus, when the sun culminates at local noon, it will be at the astronomical MC, due south. Depending on which degree of the ecliptic the sun happens to occupy (that is, on the time of year), its culmination will occur at a greater or lesser altitude -- it will be higher or lower in the sky -- but it will always begin descending towards the western horizon as soon as it has passed the meridian or astronomical MC. The same is, of course, true for any degree in the ecliptic, whether occupied by the sun or not.
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 5 of 10

 
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