james_m wrote:i feel like someone is asking me to read all of valens! is there an abbreviated version?? thanks for sharing... i am going to have to take this in smaller slices...
Cliff Notes for Valens. LOL.

Deb wrote:Here is the original presentation (60 mins)

I gather CB's follow-up went on for nearly 7 hours. I won't be watching any of it or commenting on his comments, etc - not interested in where I have heard he took this. I'll just carry on with my own stuff.
Just check 01.38.00 Koch mentioned wsh in his book Horoskop und himmelshausern

Indeed. I'm a tiny bit sceptical about the Morin reference, and would like to examine the relevant passage(s) myself (Morin was nothing if not dogmatic, so shilly-shallying sounds unlike him). And Knappich's appeal to Indian astrologers is typical of people who haven't studied the Sanskrit sources themselves (India has Vulgärastrologen, too). But overall, a very commendable effort by Tony Louis to inject some calm and sanity into he frenzied debate. 'A religious war' sadly describes the situation all too well. And I think his summaries do both me and Deb Houlding justice.

(As for the number-crunching argument referred to in passing, my recent paper is largely about the reasons why that doesn't cut it.)

thanks for the additional link to anthony louis article Orisis..

i am only now getting to the video of debs and hopefully after that, to chris's video... i have been practicing astrology as a hobby since the mid 70's.... once upon a time - when i was growing up, there was no such thing as a ''traditional'' astrologer.... that was also an invention that seemed to coincide with all the changes, or books becoming available in the late 80's and 90's and later to the internet and etc... the term itself 'traditional astrologer' was coined somewhere in that time frame... i think it is worthwhile to keep this in mind too, as it seems it became a real dividing line that some were happy to encourage... so now it appears there is a new dividing line over the use of different types of house systems and to whether one is more definitive of the past then another and on and on... it is sort of like how the stomach turns as i see it, but maybe i am missing something...

i would also like to add - wikipedia is a total propaganda site... it is useful up to a point, but like all information - subject to critical thinking and not like reading the gospel of truth for example - not that you can do that either with anything...

I also like Tony's post, and commented on it last night to say so. Said I was happy with his summary, paraphrased account of my position (because I didn't want to spend too many hours pointing out how what he put on the page wasn't exactly what I said, in the right order, etc) :D

With regard to Morin - I'd just like to see that point removed from the discussion as not even worth considering. It is a negative point IMO - showing only how desperately astrologers try to find evidence of the use of Whole Sign in places where it doesn't exist, and to think that it does requires us to ignore almost everything the astrologer has ever said and done.

Margherita Fiorello did a good job of debunking this one on her Facebook page - worth reading
on this link.

House arguments

Hi there - this sort of 'debate' has been going on for decades and probably centuries. The whole sign houses argument is just the latest version. The debate reminds me of the the Topocentric vs. Placidus discussions of the 70's and 80's. And there was some vociferous discussion about Koch houses at some point too if I remember correctly.

I was interested in Martin's comment about Lots calculated by sign. I put this into the Ed Greek module in Planetdance a while ago, based on my reading of Valens, because it seemed to me he was suggesting that this was a valid way of identifying lot position.

It seems to me that at least in Valens' case he did a lot of his interpretation using sign position = house position, probably for the reasons Martin suggests. It doesn't follow that the only method of calculation Valens' used was by sign, or that it was even the primary method of calculation, as he would have been able to calculate by degree too as Martin demonstrates.

I wonder if questions of accuracy and precision of time measurement played a part as well. I'm sure Valens' and his colleagues would have realised that it was pointless, in most circumstances, to calculate by degree when most birth times would have been accurate to a quarter of an hour at best, and planetary positions would have been imprecise compared to our computer driven calculations. In this case, interpretation by sign would have been wholly defensible and quite rationale.

Martin's article is an excellent overview of these questions in the Valens' text. Thanks Martin!
Last edited by astralwanderer on Sun Feb 12, 2023 11:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
"...the motions that are akin to the divine in us are the thoughts and revolutions of the universe."

Plato, Timaeus, 90.

Why brennan is totally wrong
From Gansten's article

There is no reason to believe a different system of places to be presupposed here than elsewhere in the text, any more than a different system of calculating planetary longitudes: it is simply the case that the demand for accuracy on both counts is greater in the context of life-span prognostication than in many others, so that more detailed information is presented. Furthermore, as will be shown below, calculations by degree at least occasionally – and possibly often – underlie even examples where those degrees are not explicitly listed.

In some cases it is evident that some other system than whole-sign places is intended, but less certain whether that system is equal or quadrant places. Such an instance is found in the second book of the Anthologies, not in connection with longevity or any special-purpose technique, but as part of a general discussion of aspects (emphasis added):

Jupiter squaring Mars, when one is in the ascendant and the other is in the midheaven or in the Good Daimon, is strong.46

For two planets occupying the first and eleventh places (ascendant and Good Daimon) by the whole-sign method, forming a square either to the degree or even by sign alone is in fact impossible.47 If equal places are used, two planets so placed can form a square by sign but not by degree; the latter is possible only when using quadrant places (see fig. 7–9).