6) Did I sneakily edit my own work?

6) Did I sneakily edit my own work?

The FBI declined to get involved, but there has been a forensic-level investigation into the possibility of me editing the recording of my own presentation and removing four words before making it freely available for personal attack.
As reported by the Good Man himself (I didn’t get this from him, but from the brusque accusations of his iratified followers).
(Hang on, did his 7-hour feature play the copyrighted audio file without permission? I trust he did not show video footage from my copyrighted presentation too; or thinks that he can use my original creative ideas in text reproduction for his channel? Just because I release my research work for free doesn’t mean I don’t retain the rights; something used to fill 7 hours seems beyond ‘fair use’ to me!)

Anyway, to this point: I was a bit surprised to hear this, as I struggled to remember making any significant changes. Then surprise turned to disbelief that anyone would make a deal of this one!

Nevertheless, having been hounded to provide an answer:
I remember wanting to be able to go through the video to tidy it up before I released it to my own private students (this was months ago) and feeling frustrated that I didn't have the time to do that. So it was pretty much in its raw state, even though there are parts of it I definitely would have cleaned up if I’d been offering it for sale or considering the much wider circulation it would later get. I remember clipping a little from the beginning and the end and a few very small, insignificant edits, so that the whole thing lasted exactly 60 minutes.
I assume I clipped that little comment because it was repeated.
This was a rather casual presentation for me, given for free for an AA conference, where I filled in a speaking slot for someone else. I had little time to prepare a ‘presentation’ (my PP was put together in the morning of the day I delivered around noon) – although a big topic, this was not the ‘big thing’ in my life at that time, compared to some other pressing deadlines I was working on.
Note the style of my delivery is very much in the nature of in-the-moment-live, spontaneous dialogue, recounting from experience without reference to notes.
Here is the dialogue in its context, with those clipped words reinserted in square brackets. Read in full, within context. This should make it absolutely clear, to anyone with a functioning brain-cell, that I am talking about awareness of this approach not existing within my experience at the specific time referred to.

I’m particularly stirred to give this presentation in view of the quote on the screen: “the whole Sign House system is the oldest form of house division and remained the preferred method of determining houses for about a thousand years after its Inception???.

That definition is all over the internet, on many credible authoritative websites; and any new student coming into astrology is obviously going to think “Well, everybody's telling me this is a great house system; it’s the easiest: it's the best; it's the oldest, and it was preferred for a thousand years???. So, you know, why would you not use it? Let's take a look at the issues.

So I want to say, that what's of interest to me is: I am a pre-computer astrologer; when I started studying astrology you had to manually calculate your charts. The internet (the World Wide Web) wasn't invented; there were forms of the internet, but there wasn't a public web that we all shared.

And I remember in the 80s, and early 90s, there wasn't any semblance of a house system called Whole Sign Houses. I mean, I would like to say there was zero recognition of it in the western tradition. I don't know about Vedic systems, or Hindu astrologers using sidereal systems might have used something like that, but certainly as an astrologer that was in the community at the time, there was no awareness of anybody using Whole Sign Houses, showing charts, teaching on it, talking about it, [it just didn’t exist] prior to the 1990s, when it was launched with a big fanfare by Project Hindsight. So, you know, this is just 30 years. We've moved from a situation where there was virtually no recognition of this system – like I say, I would say “zero??? but there might have been one or two people using it (like there were some people claiming there are 13 signs in the Zodiac) - but it didn't exist within the mainstream practice prior to the 1990s.
I've underlined the last remark so that those unable to see the wood for the trees can understand the personalised and limited time-frame context in which I was saying it didn’t exist (clue again – for me; in my experience – that is, at that time, and in my own experience of things, amongst the astrologers I was mixing with – at that time).

Since I’m an editor by instinct, and wanting to shave a couple of minutes off the length of the whole thing, I no doubt realised I had repeated the same words “it didn’t exist??? more than once in the same paragraph (that sort of thing annoys my Virgo Moon). The gist of my point is sufficiently made and very clear.

BTW, if someone is going to put me and my work on trial for 7 hours, followed by ongoing analysis into eternity, it would have been nice to have been called as a witness in my own defence.
Or someone could have asked me about this *before* suggesting to the world that I'm just sneaky and not to be trusted, or going off on a tangent for hours and hours to accuse me of persistently holding to views that I keep shouting “I don’t have!!???
I suppose it is too much to expect the Good Man to possess a moral compass and refrain from circulating malicious comments like this to his 60K+ fired up Twitter followers, more than 40 of whom have recirculated that demeaning remark, so I have to suffer offering justifications like this, to account for myself to a mob reaction. Let alone that he is plagiarising my work constantly, by presenting my original research ideas on his channel without permission to my own detriment.

For the record: I will edit my own work any way I choose - even if I took half of it out, and played the whole thing backwards, speeded up, I wouldn't be mashing it up half as much as Brennan has.

(In future - should we call anyone who edits their postings here "sneaky"?)

For anyone not active on Social Media - a YouTube video published today gives a 96-second summary of the storyline so far:


I don't know the person who did this, but see he is already getting disputed and attacked in the comments from the supporters of the "diabolical FIRST ORDER", who are denying his arguments! LOL

Obviously, I love this - and think it is hilarious

Hi Deb,

You said:

"Without checking the actual words I used, I would hope that the full context of my presentation makes clears what my argument is about: the lack of recommendation of signs for houses as a preferred technique in ancient and historical texts (as opposed to a convenient approach adopted when precision is unnecessary or time is unknown).

I am not unaware of examples where we might assume that approach was taken, although I do believe that we often make assumptions for that unnecessarily. So, to me, someone putting up charts and making arguments along the lines of “look at these chart as evidence of WS use??? is irrelevant. I am looking for evidence of it being recognised as a ‘system’ or a definable method within the texts that have fed into the lineage of western astrology, alongside evidence that some astrologer actually recommended it as a preferred technique."

My reply:

Please rewatch your lecture from 5 min 48 sec to 6 min 50 sec.

True, you could at least partially get away with such an argument with Valens, but not with the Perso-Arabic astrologers 600-700 years later, when each of them writes about and uses distributions/primary directions. Hence, the inaccuracies in Masha'allah's and Sahl's charts are smaller. Yet they did not give cusps in the charts I have shown. This does not mean they ignored the angles. Ben Dykes wrote about this in his introduction in Bonatti in 2007, and Sahl is even more explcit than this in his book, also translated by Ben Dykes. Speaking of Ben Dykes' translation skills, I am not qualified to appraise them. Your argument that he may not agree with his own annotatons could have had merit. However, one of the reasons Dykes decided to study Arabic is because of the incompete and corrupted Latin texts. And then Ben translated Works of Sahl & Masha'allah. Did he change his annotations? On the contrary, he wrote and showed the whole sign houses in Sahl and Masha'allah. Again, Robert Hand also translated Masha'allah's On Reception and he said the same (in Brennan's interview) - Masha'allah used whole sign houses in this treatise.

You are professional astrologer as well. You teach theory and then practice. What other house system were all these ancient astrologers using if not whole sign houses, when:

1) They talk about the signs as houses, as I showed with Sahl for example. That is the theoretical part;

2) Then, in the practical part, the ancient astrologers not only do not give the intermediate house cusps, they do not even mention them in their charts.

I have shown:

a) a horary chart;

b) an electional chart;

c) I mentioned the natal charts in Dorotheus, which you yourself have published from David Pingree's translation;

c) And I have shown a mundane chart.

"So we now have a total database of 300 charts. Out of these only 32
have references to midheavens. Only two have intermediate cusps."

The above is from Robert Hand's paper Signs as Houses/Places in Ancient Astrology, page 8. Everyone can download it from their website.

www.cultureandcosmos.org/pdfs/11/11_Han ... _Vol11.pdf

You can try to use the inaccuracy card again, but not with 300 to 2 odds, because this list includes charts not just in Valens.

I strongly recommend people read the full paper. Rob Hand also discusses some tricky passages in Firmicus Maternus, such as the one on Lots, which may support whole sign houses rather than equal houses.

I confirm what I have written and translated about the book in Bulgarian. Here is the full information:

Book title and author in Bulgarian: "Специални??т начин за тълкуване на хоро??копа
превод, подбор и коментари Валдемар Бези????ар", издадена през 1993г от издател??тво ??ратрон

Translation: "The Special Way of Interpreting the Horoscope
translation, selection and commentary Valdemar Bezissar", published in 1993 by Aratron publishing house.


The bulk of the book is a treatise by Arabic astrologer Andrusar Ibn Zabi Al Farukh aka Doronius. James Herschel Holden’s Biographical Dictionary of Western Astrologers says on p.32 that Levy identified Andrusar Ibn Zabi Al Farukh as Andruzagar inb Zabi Al Farrrukh, but according to David Pingree this is Zadhan Farrukh al-Andarzaghar.

The translator of the book, Valdemar Bezissar aka Fiodor Gruzinev, writes on the very first paragraph of the book (page 13) that the treatise was found by Heinrich Rantzau, count of Schleswig-Holstein. Then the book begins with what I translated above and which I also here confirm its verasity. The year given is 1547.
Ancient and Chinese Astrology:


Hi Zagata
There will be debates and conflicting opinions about some issues, and we may have to live with that. But then there is the factual information we can establish for the historical record - so dealing with these two questions comes to the top of my list:

- What is the first reference we know of where WS is defined as a method?
- Do we have any evidence of a historical astrologer recommending it as a preferred method?

I have read and re-read your posts several times. Several names and dates are mentioned in such a way that I still struggle to know who (and when) wrote that introductory commentary, stating that the division of WS was a method. I had assumed that was penned in the 16th century by someone as an introduction to an older text, because of the reference to 1547. Now you are mentioning commentary added in 1993. I hate to keep asking you to clarify - perhaps someone else sees it more clearly than me and can help me out here, to establish whether this is a historical definition of WS or not?

I understand why some people prefer wsh. It is more sound philosophically and you dont get 8th or 12th house planets in good aspect to the ASC. I think looking at case studies is the way to go.

from Max Duval

the Max Duval bookon domification is a scan from the 80s print edition, turn to page 47, he mentions Albert Negre who introduced his use of the zodiac as houses in a 1950 article in the famous magazine "les cahiers astrologiques" from Alexandre Volguine. so there was an active discussion around WSH prior to Holden, project Hindsight etc. happening in France actually. there is no doubt about that.

s’éloigner de plus en plus de l’antenne X, et l’on retombe
sur le principal défaut du « Modus Aequalis ».
Le « Modus Aequalis » modifié :
Xavier Kieffer proposa une variante du Modus
Aequalis sous le vocable de « Méthode antique », en
plaçant le Point Ascendant non plus au début, mais au
milieu de la première maison. Il propose également
l’utilisation simultanée d’une domification solaire, second Modus Aequalis où cette fois, c’est le soleil qui
se trouve placé au milieu de la première maison.
La Domification Zodiacale
Fin 1950, Albert Nègre proposait sa « domification
zodiacale ». L’étude de nombreux thèmes lui apporta la
preuve qu’elle était très probablement la seule vraie,
— se demandant s’il n’avait pas retrouvé la domification
des Anciens.
C’est encore une variante du Modus Aequalis dont le
principe reste simple : le signe zodiacal où se place le
Point Ascendant est la maison I, — le signe suivant la
maison II, etc.
L’inventeur termine ainsi sa présentation : « L’expérience m’ayant indubitablement prouvé que la domification zodiacale permet d’interpréter aisément là où les
autres domifications échouent, j’estime qu’elle est la
vraie méthode, et la seule applicable à tous les thèmes ».
On allait le dire.
Le système de Porphyre eut aussi à subir des cures
de rajeunissement successivement administrées par
N. Bazchenoff en 1937, et l’astrologue anglais Colin
Evans peu après 1940.
On sait que les 4 quadrants d’écliptique déterminés
par les points Asc-Desc et MC-FC sont généralement
très inégaux deux à deux. Mais les deux bissectrices
sont toujours perpendiculaires entre elles. L’idée
commune a été une domification symétriquement croissante de part et d’autre de ces bissectrices. N Bazchenoff
appliqua une division harmonique, et Colin Evans u


That is a good topic. That is also why I recommended that people read Robert Hand's full article above, because he also mentions this as well, quoting scholars. But this does not change the fact that Vales was using whole sign houses with the technqiues he presented, like profections, zodiacal releasing, etc.

Still, even if the above argument were valid, it does not hold true in the electional chart for the coronation of the Sassanid king of kings, in Sahl, as well as in Masha'allah. The reason is because they include the degrees of the Asc and of the planets. And Sahl also shows the degree of the MC.

And Ben Dykes explained how European scribes in the case of Bonatti deliberately changed the ending of nouns with the purpose of omitting whole sign houses and replacing them with quadrant houses.
Ancient and Chinese Astrology:


Orisis wrote:from Max Duval
the Max Duval bookon domification is a scan from the 80s print edition, turn to page 47, he mentions Albert Negre who introduced his use of the zodiac as houses in a 1950 article in the famous magazine "les cahiers astrologiques" from Alexandre Volguine. so there was an active discussion around WSH prior to Holden, project Hindsight etc. happening in France actually. there is no doubt about that.
Just really briefly, if you read the piece in question it’s clear that Negre believed he had invented the system. And he wasn’t talking of its usage in history. If we want to label this to Deb’s presentation maybe we could imagine a world in which every statement had some disclaimers or legalese to ensure it’s clear she’s talking about WSH in the same manner as it’s used today and in English translation. I don’t know if I’d want to wade through all those clauses though. I think anyone reasonable understands Deb isn’t suggesting she surveyed every book written in every language but talking about the culture of the astrological community in English speaking communities.

In this case we can infer, however, that if Negre believed he invented the system then it must be surely so rare even in Fracophone communities that he himself had never even heard of it. And he’s clear in his suggestion that he tried other house systems before it occurred to him to try something different and use the signs instead.

Whatever his view of it it’s clearly further evidence that WSH really wasn’t a thing. Even for French speaking astrologers.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates


Deb wrote: [About the quote where Ibn Ezra used temporal hours for House division] No, because the point is to identify the method used, and Ezra is known to have employed what we refer to as the 'Placidus' method of house division. We know Placidus didn't invent it (neither did Ezra) but it is commonly known by his name - just like the Alcabitius system was named after Al-Qabisi, but only because Al-Qabisi used it, not to suggest that he invented it.
For what it worths. I Will try to check and get back, but Jean Hiéroz, in his "L'astrologie selon Morin de Villefranche, quelques autres et moi-même" (ed. Omnium Littéraire, Paris, 1962), does quote an earlier writer to Placidus (with perhaps a hundred years or so) using temporal hours for House divisions.

Deb wrote:
I have read and re-read your posts several times. Several names and dates are mentioned in such a way that I still struggle to know who (and when) wrote that introductory commentary, stating that the division of WS was a method. I had assumed that was penned in the 16th century by someone as an introduction to an older text, because of the reference to 1547. Now you are mentioning commentary added in 1993. I hate to keep asking you to clarify - perhaps someone else sees it more clearly than me and can help me out here, to establish whether this is a historical definition of WS or not?
Hi Deb,

You are asking me for definitive answers about this material and I don't have them. What I can tell you is what the book says. The book is a treatise of this Arabic astrologer Andrusar-Ibn-Zabi-Al-Farrukh who lived in the 9th century according to some sources.

This treatise was found by 16th century astrologer Heinrich Rantzau. And he was the one who wrote 1547 - when he was 21 years old. I presume Rantzau had the treatise translated into Latin, and the translator of the book - Valdamar Bezissar aka Fiodor Gruzinev translated it into Bulgarian. I do not know whether he translated it from Latin or from some modern language - this information is not given.

As to whether other astrologers have added more information to this treatise, or whether the translator has done so, I cannot tell you which one did it. You will notice for example that the text mentions Placidus houses in 1547 - almost a century before the time of Placidus. I did not conceal this - I merely translated it as it is in the text.

What I will also tell you, which I showed in my video, is that the translator finished this book in 1964. In the Conclusion on p. 314, it start with this,

"In the book of V. Bezissar there is material for interpreting the erected horoscope accoding to general rules.The author recommends the domification system of the ancient astrologers: sign/house, that is, after finding the ascending point, the sign in which it is placed is the first house, the next sign is the second house, etc."
Ancient and Chinese Astrology: