But you really have to study all of the 18 charts and delineations he has in this work.

I may be particularly dense tonight, but I am someone who usually has to redraw the chart in order to see, and follow the reasoning. I've re-read your passage three times but I can't conceptualise the evidence you say is there, so instead I've found a reasonably priced copy and I'll do as you say. Hopefully it will be as clear as you say it is, and then I'll come back and thank you.

I sympathise with the time pressure - same here. I currently have Saturn transitting my Moon and squaring my Mercury, and the body and brain seems to be getting older and wearier by the day. I'll be 110 next week. Tonight I am trying to decide if I genuinely am coming down with flu or just materialising my fears - either way, that probably explains why I can't follow your quote tonight. What I mean is, I don't see how the above examples show anything more than the Rhetorius example - in fact the reasoning and techniques sound very similar, from how you describe them. The comment that "the Sun and the Moon are in the fourth but 'entering' the third because by division they fall in the third" reminds me of comments from Bonatus, where he talks about planets entering the house from what we would consider the 'end' of the house, and leaving from the end near the cusp. I don't have the ref on me right now but can dig it out and post it if anyone needs it.

I hope what I have written makes sense. I accept that this may well be me being slow witted right now, so I'll check the passages when the book arrives.

Thanks again
Deb

Hi
What do you think of Wackford arguments in favour of placidus system? Do you see any flaws in his theory?


thanks

woodwater wrote:Hi
What do you think of Wackford arguments in favour of placidus system? Do you see any flaws in his theory?

thanks

Personally I don't consider Wackford's or Otto Ludwig's method a consistent solution, moreover I find it a very unattractive one and I seem not to be alone in this.

MWackford wrote:With regard to Dieter (Koch), this is news to me. The last time we spoke, he ?hated? the 6-house ?lid? as an ugly add-on (whereas I consider it an elegantly obvious extrapolation of first principles). He programmed the thing but didn?t like it. Maybe I should get back in touch with him.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewt ... a3d15e6377
This illustrates how tastes kan differ in our choice for a house system. Perhaps this taste (which is closely related to a certain theoretical approach) more than our experience determines our choice for a certain house/reference system.

The method can also be applied to Regiomontanus, see ?2 in http://www.skyscript.co.uk/polar5.html , and therefore also thus to Campanus. I however do see flaws in this theory, here http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4555 I calculated an example as an illustration of what its application would look like in practice and the (what I consider as) problems one will face.

However, I don't want to be a pain in the neck of other astrologers who prefer quadrant or unequal house systems and I will leave it with the remarks above.

Eddy wrote:

woodwater wrote:Hi
What do you think of Wackford arguments in favour of placidus system? Do you see any flaws in his theory?

thanks

Personally I don't consider Wackford's or Otto Ludwig's method a consistent solution, moreover I find it a very unattractive one and I seem not to be alone in this.

MWackford wrote:With regard to Dieter (Koch), this is news to me. The last time we spoke, he ?hated? the 6-house ?lid? as an ugly add-on (whereas I consider it an elegantly obvious extrapolation of first principles). He programmed the thing but didn?t like it. Maybe I should get back in touch with him.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewt ... a3d15e6377
This illustrates how tastes kan differ in our choice for a house system. Perhaps this taste (which is closely related to a certain theoretical approach) more than our experience determines our choice for a certain house/reference system.

The method can also be applied to Regiomontanus, see ?2 in http://www.skyscript.co.uk/polar5.html , and therefore also thus to Campanus. I however do see flaws in this theory, here http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4555 I calculated an example as an illustration of what its application would look like in practice and the (what I consider as) problems one will face.

However, I don't want to be a pain in the neck of other astrologers who prefer quadrant or unequal house systems and I will leave it with the remarks above.

well, all I can say regarding House systems is that I like to travel, but I find it difficult to visit a place if i dont intend to live there sooner or later, or work there if you like.
Does that suggests Capricorn in H9(placidus) or Aquarius (equal and WHS)?

thanks

Hello,

Perhaps we should consider a different approach:

- Instead of seeing which house method fits best, why don't we fit a house system by our own to fit our events in our lives?

My belief is clear: I think we should not follow mathematical models for house determination: we should discover this by first following our own life events. Then, we have to come with a system that works well for every chart. I am not seeking to use a house method as a tool, from which I can choose different options. I want to know what is the reality, what really happens, what is the truth.
You can read my findings below.

If you are interested in doing this with me, please mail me and we can see in both of our charts where one cusp ends and another begins. My mail is segurelha "AT" gmail.com

- If you were born ABOVE 55?N then I am really interested in hearing from you!

----------

I have done extensively for my own chart. I have had Uranus and Neptune transiting my first house, so this lead me to observe some interesting things. I have followed transiting Mars and Sun to discover when inner shifts and events occur: most occur at degrees 16? and 28? of every sign, which are also where planets make aspects to my natal Sun and Moon! It seems that an equal 30? house method fits better in following my life events.

When Uranus crossed these exact points in my rising (16? and 28? Aquarius), these were the times of awakening and radical change. It's like first house activity began at 16? Aqu, and then climaxed at 28? Aqu. However, this is complicated because at both these points, Uranus was aspecting my natal Moon and Sun (by quincunx and sextile).

In my own case, I don't have an exact birth time (10-11am). I had a difficult birth with artificially assisted breathing.

When I tried to determine exact IC and MC, I used transiting Saturn and Pluto, because they were transiting those signs some years ago. Pluto could only transited it in 1990 or 2000 (degrees 16? Sco and 12? Sag), because these were the major events related to both father and career, respectively. Also, after 16? Sag, Pluto seems to have a more entered eleventh house theme.
A major difficult Saturn transit occurred in 2000, with two major difficult periods at 11? and 28? Taurus. Curiously, by 14? Gemini, I started with a new fifth house theme (new romance), so this degree (around 11-17? of each sign) seems to fit well.

But if I consider an ASC with either ~15? or ~28? Aquarius, the degrees of IC-MC would have to be different and don't fit these transits!!!

I also discovered the following:
- the 12 houses seem to be really there, because I have followed this for all transits of every planet.
- there is a ~5-15? mix of energies of both houses, around a cusp, where the energy of one house merges into the next, then the energy of the house rises, climaxes and then decreases into the next one. This makes me think, whether it would not be more important to consider the climax point of each house instead of their cusps. In my own case, a new house theme starts at around 14-15? of each sign, and then climaxes at around 28-30? of that sign. I did not discover any other sensitive degrees like these.

I am really sorry for my aggressive search for the truth; I only want to discover the real workings of the houses; after all I am a Sag, you know our motivation. You see, astrologers come with different house systems but they are not realizing that these are only different options, maybe they are just working with a model and not with reality. In reality, there must be one system that works with accuracy (even if it's not found yet), and then the others are only an approximation. Yes, for making readings, this is valid, and very good: you are serving the other, helping the client, supporting his life with understanding (even if it's not totally accurate). But what I seek now is to discover the reality and not the models.

So my empirical findings seem to undermine the ASC-MC assumption. The tenth house cusp seems to be really the square to first house system, and a 30? house method fits better. And this also FITS GOOD for people born above 55?N.

What do you think?

Hello,

First, I must say I don't desire to stir any trouble to your house systems! If anyone here uses a specific house system that is very fine! But if you are open to discuss an alternative to the quadrant system, then I am very grateful to hear it.

My birth was around 10.45, but it could be 10 min earlier or later. The problem is that it was a slow and difficult birth.

The problem is: do we exactly know at which moment shall we trace a natal chart? When the baby breathes: Is this the right moment to consider a natal chart? Births can take between 5min to more than an hour, and all that period is very energetically-charged. This is a difficult point to pinpoint.

IMHO, I think we would do much better to follow our life events and find the houses by ourselves than rely in a fixed hour and a computer software.

I think astrologers (and I confess to be also like that ) are somewhat lazy and prefer the confort of a software instead of questioning if what they see is really accurate and it gives you the full and correct picture!!

Forgive me, because I am having a Uranus/Mercury transit, and thus I am challening established ideas. My intuition tells me there is a lot that is poorly understood and innaccurate in conventional house determination systems. I know most people don't want to spend much time bothering to reach a conclusion that their house system could be not corresponding to reality.

By following several charts (5) of my close ones, I can't reach an exact ASC but only an approximate point of transition around 15? Aquarius (which fits well with told birth date). There seems to be a constant 30? recurrence of the transits and important events, and change into the next house theme, which makes me think that a 30? house system is best. There seems to be a bell-shapped curve of astrological activity. Can you picture this?

Moreover, it seems at the transition (cusp) there are events of both the preceeding house and a little bit of the next house; sometimes a radical event correponds to themes of both houses, and stirs the theme of the ne house, but only starting it. The events of the next house only seem to climax at the middle of its own house (between 28?-5? of each sign in my chart). In several other charts I have seen the same pattern.

Finally, do you know cases of people born at 55? or even 65?N? When do they get significant shifts in career? When a planet squares his ascendant or in the calculated MC? Because, if this is so, then some people spend plenty of time with transits over houses 7-9, and then only a very short time in the following houses! IMHO, this does not make sense.

I would be very glad to hear from people born at these latitudes!

Personally I find your independent investigations quite interesting, and, for what its worth, I encourage you in your further work and ask that you please keep us informed here on Skyscript. There is too much close-mindedness and apriori theoretical prejudice-especially by the "experts"-in our astrological art, at least that's what I've seen over the past 35 years of my studies. Fresh insights- built upon properly understood ancient foundations-are, in my opinion, of great importance, for, unlike some, I do not believe that we currently posses a completely unfolded astrological system needing no further improvement...

The reactivation of this thread has reminded me that I need to update on the discussion I had with Steven on page 4. I eventually received my copy of Pingree?s "The Astrological History of Masha'allah", and I agree that it is a very illuminating text for demonstrating Masha?allah?s techniques in practice. It is also clear, as Steven reported, that Masha?allah made interpretational use of both quadrant and whole sign division, sometimes employing both together to describe the effect of a planet.

If the text is read carefully it is also clear that most interpretational significance is given to the quadrant division ? the point is missed unless the text is studied because the chart diagrams that accompany the text don?t show this. At a superficial reading some of the points don?t seem to make sense because the planets appear in the wrong ?places?, so I redrew the charts and then the judgements and the reported positions of the planets in their houses made perfect sense. It?s a while back now so I can?t remember without checking if I redrew with Alcabitius or a different system, but one of these made a perfect alignment with the text. This is not a subjective assessment. Pingree also explains the techniques in use and points out that Masha?allah took a fluid approach which made use of both ways of reckoning the places.

It is such a shame that this text is out of print now because its one of the best collections I have seen for demonstrations of practical chartwork from that period. When I have more time I hope to discuss with Steven ways that we might be able to present some of those charts and judgements on the site, or perhaps start up a discussion specifically to explore these issues. (A project for another day?)

Hi, Deb
I also got the text because of Steven?s suggestion. It is not a very clear text, but there is valuable information about mundane astrology that I didn?t find anywhere else.

Cost me an eye to get the book from an internet seller who would mail it to south america!

Deb wrote:When I have more time I hope to discuss with Steven ways that we might be able to present some of those charts and judgements on the site, or perhaps start up a discussion specifically to explore these issues. (A project for another day?)

It would be wonderful if both of you could come up with something about that matter; I hope this topic does not sink in oblivion


james

I totally agree with the close-mindness of many astrologers, there is a great attachment to old structures.

Most use the same house system without ever questioning much about it.

But if you are interested, I encourage you to read more of my findings in www.astrotransits.blogspot.com

dr. farr wrote:Personally I find your independent investigations quite interesting, and, for what its worth, I encourage you in your further work and ask that you please keep us informed here on Skyscript. There is too much close-mindedness and apriori theoretical prejudice-especially by the "experts"-in our astrological art, at least that's what I've seen over the past 35 years of my studies. Fresh insights- built upon properly understood ancient foundations-are, in my opinion, of great importance, for, unlike some, I do not believe that we currently posses a completely unfolded astrological system needing no further improvement...

Interesting material on your blog! The house system question bothered me for a long time: apparently it bothered others, like Ebertin (who ultimately abandoned the whole thing as a mass of confusing contradictions), and Robert Hand-who admits to having almost done the same as Ebertin, prior to his discovery of the ancient literature regarding Whole Signs. Over the past decade my previous problems and confusions about houses has ended and has given way to clear macrocosmic "pictures" which my little brain can now better understand, thanks to my switching (from Placidus) to the ancient chart construction method.

At the same time I don't "knock" any of the other house systems, or those who use them to great effect. Whole Sign makes sense to me and works best for me, and that is all I am concerned with. My old astrologer friend, Pasha (whom I've mentioned several times on various Forum threads) back in the 1970's (before anyone even heard of the ancient Whole Sign house system) was an ardent proponent of Alcabitius (a house system developed around the 9th century and once almost universally applied in the Islamic astrological world) Pasha was somewhat of a fanatic about Alcabitius, often repudiating Regiomantus and Placidus as "upstarts" (!) and completely dismissing more modern systems like Koch, at the same time laughing at the "over-simplification" represented by the Equal House system (advocated at the time by followers of Charles Carter) And Pasha showed us students (at the old Aleph Bookstore in Glendale, CA) some really startling things through natal, mundane and horary examples using Alcabitius! Anyone who thoroughly studies and understands any of the house systems, and applies whichever is selected with competence, will obtain excellent results.