Hi Kenneth,

Thank you for your kind words.

?In my former practice, when I saw individuals with lots of 12th house planets these were the Gauquelin "strong". But in my mind there was nothing "cadent" or "mutable" about them. They were standout leaders, dressed to impress, they wore bangles or obvious jewelry, they had loud resonant voices, they commanded attention wherever they went, they had an irresistable beauty. They were charismatic. Not all were like this but by far the majority were. I called them the "high profile" people. They lived in the spotlight. I sometimes wondered to myself, can they ever escape the spotlight, would they ever want to?

I wonder if others who practice have seen this.?

Yes, I have. But there?s more to it than simply the house, and appearances can be deceiving ? generally speaking have seen it both in overcompensatory behaviour stemming from a certain fear, and from a pov where native has confronted certain fears and surrendered to what they regard as a higher calling. Many shades, variations, tones.
Keeping it simple to my way of thinking the houses represent fields of experience ? the actual planets involved indicating the energy dynamic of the individual, the sign adding a descriptive frame of reference for that energy and the houses indicating areas where that energy gets showcased.
If certain planets are within range of the angles (the pinnacles or peaks), then this energy is brought forward strongly in some way. To my mind, people are more than the sum total of their experiences. However, their experiences ? the interaction of their energy with their environment/experiential field ? goes a long way toward shaping future experiences and expectations.

From the pov of being able to share knowledge, experience, talents, skills with others I think Cadent/Mutable has a very important role to play and therefore the generalized descriptor of ?weak? doesn?t sit all that comfortably with me.

How ?weak? gets defined and interpreted within society?s general frame of reference varies and how this interpretation is communicated through to the querant differs according to the need presented, ie. hororary vs natal astrology etc. ?Weak? is not generally regarded that favourably, but if one pauses to consider how writers, actors, musicians, military generals, sportspeople illuminate weakness or vulnerability ? the struggle of human frailty - and public reaction to it then I think one gets a sense of the power that resides within it.

I take the view hororary rests upon judgement, but when we step into a nativity judgement is suspended as the pendulum swings toward illuminating choices made at a deeper level. The difference between judging outcomes and judging the internal workings of individuals. Outcomes are less intimate than the individual, even though the individual is intimately involved, but when we step into a nativity there?s a deeper sanctity or trust involved that I believe precludes pronouncing judgement on another soul. Where someone is ?weak? or vulnerable also holds the potential for their greatest source of strength and empowerment.

Re: Cadent/Mutable, I look at it from pov that if energy didn?t ?fall? away from the angles or peaks it wouldn?t get shared with others ? wouldn?t be disseminated into others awareness whereby it might benefit them in some way. A message, a teaching, an inspiration holds little value for anyone else until it?s delivered, the nature of it's delivery coloured by planets, signs.

?They lived in the spotlight. I sometimes wondered to myself, can they ever escape the spotlight, would they ever want to??

Psychological needs? I think this would depend on what purpose they saw themselves as serving and to my way of thinking this comes back primarily to the planets involved and the sign, eg. planets in Leo 12th vs planets in say Virgo 12th.
There?s a wide polarity of expressions and many that fall in-between within any particular zone of experience.
I agree that statistics have their place ? just as the oft (and I think unfairly) maligned Sun sign astrology has it?s place, to my way of thinking each is a step on the path that leads toward illuminating greater understandings ? imo it only becomes problematic when demand dictates that one finding defines all and attempts are made to cement it in concrete at the individual level. Guiding principles vs doctrine.

I have the utmost respect for those attempting to bridge the divide by illuminating a scientific construct that forms part of interpretative rationale ? but interpretation is constantly expanding the boundaries of definable limitations and requires the synthesizing of several known constructs demanding flexibility in the scientific mindset. I think anywhere the demand for rigid conformity is made across the board is the downfall in any scientific attempt to frame the greater view (astrology) within a smaller window (science).

Science may be able to quantify life, but I don?t know that it qualifies life.

Seems there?s a prevailing view that if the greater doesn?t conform to the lesser it?s invalid and the reductionist way is what contributed to the initial division between astronomy and astrology. A separation of the part from the whole.
Attempts to confine the totality of astrology within a scientific framework strikes me as akin to attempting to squeeze an elephant into an ant hole ? it?s fragmentary at best.

In appreciation,
TS.

Hi Kenneth,

I very impatiently tried to get some confirmation on the details of the Gauquelin sectors off the web. I couldn?t find anything in the minute I allowed myself so would you mind helping out?
I seem to remember (from reading about this years back), that the sectors relate to 15 degrees before the angles and 10 degrees after the angles, but with the ascendant it?s 12 degrees after the angle. I don't think it's as simple as that but is that essentially correct?

The point I am leading to is that the real value of Gauquelin?s data strikes me as less relevant to the issue of house meanings as it is to the issue of house construction. As I understand it the ?potency? of the planet drops off significantly after the peak point, so somewhere, even in Gauquelin?s treatment, the cadency theme of weak expression is relevant. To simply redefine the meaning of the 12th house or to consider any planet in the 12th house ?strong? (or 'high profile'), even one that is, say, 30 degrees above the ascendant or on the 12th house cusp, seems to be using his results inappropriately. I can?t help wondering how the 59th Considerations of Guido Bonatus ties into this:

"consider, whether the significator be behind the cusp of an Angle 15 degrees and no more; for he shall be said to be in an Angle as well as he that is exactly there, as "Zael" affirms; whence he said before that it was not in an Angle, nor had any strength there beyond the 15th degree after the cusp of the Angle: For example. The Ascendant is 4 degrees of Taurus, and the end thereof was behind the Angle, whatever planet is posited from the 4th to the 19th degree thereof is in the angle, but what is beyond that is not; but Ptolomy seems to intimate, though he says not expressly, "that every planet who shall he 5 degrees before, or 25 degrees after the cusp, is in the Angle." Now "Zael" would clear the doubt, lest that great distance of the planet from the Angle should hinder the business."

(Anima Astrologiae: The Astrologer's Guide; facsimile edition; pp.28-29)

It is also worth reading Rob Hand?s detailed assessment of a horary quoted by Bonatus and taken from the 9th century work of Zael, (aka Zahel) at http://www.astrologer.com/aanet/pub/jou ... jul97.html

This appears to show the use of houses centred upon the cusps, with their influence extending no further than 15 degrees into the house, after which point they are associated with the subsequent house. Admittedly the evidence is scarce but this method of division appears to fit very neatly with Gauquelin?s findings - if I understand it correctly!

Kenneth:

Some of you present astrology as belief, apart from science. When asked "Do you believe in astrology?" someone once responded "Do you believe in cat food?". But the two are not the same. Cat food is not a system. It's not as simple as that

Wrong answer. When people ask me,"Do you believe in astrology?" I respond, "Everyone believes in astrology. It's not like believing in leprachauns. Astrology exists. The question is, 'Does it work?' " People who have bought into the scientific-mechanistic paradigm want to respond, "Yes it works, and here is the math to prove it." I don't think that is necessary or desireable, much less valid. We place enough people/events into pigeonholes; let's not add astrology.

To Gauquelin, astrological belief is based on knowledge that must come from science, which implies some sort of research. In the past, this knowledge was deleloped through a process I'd like to call practical research, as contrasted to experimental research. Practical research is developed through case studies, comparisons, and consensus through discussions. It was a very slow inductive process. Gauquelin wanted to speed things up by applying the tools of modern science.

For the record, and if you knew him, you know this, in the beginning it was Gauquelin's purpose to disprove astrology. In fact his initial reports contorted the findings of his data so he could report he had succeeded. His data and methods were honest and he never stooped, as his scientific critics did, to distorting the data itself. He may have changed his mind about astrology along the way, but his initial reaction to the ridicule heaped upon him by the scientific community was to demonstrate that he had not done what the astrologers claimed. He had disproved astrology with statistics. Much of his later efforts were aimed at vindication, not proving astrology. He may have changed his attitude later in his life.


Hi Sue:

Quote:
James Randi and Richard Dawkins are atheists.

And they reject religion on similar grounds to their objections to astrology. At least they show consistency and are not being hypocritical. Yet Richard Dawkins' favourite scientist, Isaac Newton, had a belief in both.

Agreed but beside my point, and I did think you were talking about astrology's enemies. Thanks for clarifying. But to bolster mine: Science minded James Randi once spearheaded a movement to forbid hospitals in the US from recording birth times on birth certificates. To my knowledge no religious organization has ever made any effort to do anything other than persuade people that astrology is false. Randi and others also actively tried to prevent Kepler College from receiving its initial certifications because it promoted astrology. It is the anti-religious science minded, in my view, who are far more likely to try to force people to behave and think in a particular manner "for their own good" than the so-called "powerful" religious lobby. When we mount our chargers and point our lances towards the religious in order to protect ourselves, we are tilting at windmills.

Tom

This appears to show the use of houses centred upon the cusps, with their influence extending no further than 15 degrees into the house, after which point they are associated with the subsequent house. Admittedly the evidence is scarce but this method of division appears to fit very neatly with Gauquelin?s findings - if I understand it correctly!

This sounds like the method of domification advanced by Johannes Vehlow and used in North Indian astrology. It is an equal house system with the 1st house cusp at 15 degrees before the ascendant. Is this the true system...?

Hi Deb,

?The point I am leading to is that the real value of Gauquelin?s data strikes me as less relevant to the issue of house meanings as it is to the issue of house construction.?

From the little I?ve read on Gauquelin?s findings I?m inclined to agree with this.
It seems his findings have a correlation with the ancient use of ?whole-sign? houses where angularity is regarded independently of the houses and doesn't impact the cusps, eg. if Ascendant was in Aquarius, then regardless of at what degree of Aquarius the Ascendant fell, the whole sign of Pisces forms the 2nd house, Aries the 3rd and so on ? aligns the signs or ?celestial houses? with the mundane houses.
In addition to the findings being based on diurnal or primary motion of the planets as initially observed from Earth (clockwise East to West) which seems to corroborate existing understandings of the houses 1,4,7,10 - except with the motion going clockwise it changes the actual house numbering thereby changing which house we are referring to. From an ancient perspective, would our currently numbered 9th have been viewed as the 4th? Hmmm...
I believe ?whole-sign? houses have traveled down through time to be the main system still employed by Vedic astrologers.

In appreciation,
TS.

Hi Deb,

According to the Cosmic Data Bank
http://www.cd-b.com/gauquelin_sectors.htm

# GS1 - 30? above the Ascendant and 10? immediately below it, 40? in total.
# GS2 - 30? west of the MC and 10? east of the MC, 40? in total.
# GS3 - 20? below the Descendant and 10? above it, 30? in total.
# GS4 - 20? east of the IC and 10? west of the IC, 30? in total.

Gauquelin said he used Placidus houses.

The g-sectors are constructed like this so the distributions peak in the middle of these sectors. It's often been proposed that the g-sectors are the cadent houses overlaid by the orb for the angles.

Adding to this my own observation of clients with a high cadent count, I would say there's something wrong with the house interpretations. The high cadent people were not overcompensating, they are who they are. If the count was high, I could predict this before I met the client. You might call them "extroverts." The angular clients tended out to be the more nerdish "introverts." The high succeedent types tended to be "moody" or "brooding," though artistic. Of course this is only one chart factor among each whole chart I had to read, and I may not have noticed it if I wasn't looking for it, counting and comparing. Still, I may have a bias, so that's why I'm asking others.

Gauquelin said the g-sector (he called them "key sectors") planets were "strong" and that is why his results for musicians had a strong Mars peak in the 11th house (NOT in a g-sector). He explained that Mars had to be in a "weak" in order for the artistic sensibilities to emerge. I used Rudhyarist reasoning to argue that those Mars placements are just as "strong" as the g-sector Mars placements, only it produced outstanding musicians and artists, who effectively used the Mars for that purpose. My point here is that Gauquelin's findings relate to houses and not just the angles. I don't think astrologers should be trying to dismiss these results. Astrologers should be trying to explain them.

Tom,

Do you believe that astrology works? If your answer is yes, then how do you know it works?

Gauquelin always supported astrology. I asked him about how he got into astrology, and here is the story based on what he told me.

Gauquelin's father, a dentist, entertained his captive patients with astrology, telling them about themselves. Gauquelin learned astrology early and often cut school to read astrology books in a bookstore. He knew astrology intimately. His friends in school called him Nostradamus. He studied psychology in hopes that he could "prove" astrology. After he made his initial discoveries, he submitted a paper towards his dissertation, but realized he would have to wait forever for approval, so he published. As we know, his book raised a controversy, but he longed for the acceptance of the scientific community. So he decided to weed out what he considered to be abuses of astrology. For his famous test of gullibility, he offered a free chart interpretation through a newspaper ad, asking respondents to fill out a questionnaire to survey approval. He sent everyone the same reading, which he obtained from a popular horoscope service, using the data of a notorious serial killer. This test was intended to expose flaws in astrology and support his scientific approach to astrology. He also published falsifications of other studies that claimed statistical findings in astrology, pointing out demographic and astronomical flaws. Obviously he didn't support anything and everything astrological. He had a mission to improve astrology.


Andrew,

An Indian astrologer once told me that he used porphyry houses, just like I did, only the house cusp would be in the middle of the house the way I did it. So ASC would fall in the middle of the first house. I don't agree with this.

KennethM

An Indian astrologer once told me that he used porphyry houses, just like I did, only the house cusp would be in the middle of the house the way I did it. So ASC would fall in the middle of the first house. I don't agree with this.

This is the Sripati system. Classical Indian astrology is based on ideas imported from the Hellenistic world but there do not appear to be any classical Sanskrit astrological texts in existence that even mention the Whole Sign Houses. Most of the texts that explicitly teach a method of domification favour the Sripati system, described by the author Sripati in his 'Jatakakarmapaddhati' (c. 1050 CE).

The main difference between the Sripati houses and the Porphyre houses is that in India the cusps are considered bhavamadhya or the centres of the houses. The cusp of the ascendant is the centre of the first house (i.e., from the midpoint of the twelfth cusp and the ascendant to the midpoint of the ascendant and the second cusp). The midpoint between two houses is known as a house junction or bhavasandhi.

The 'Brihatparasharahorashastra' (c. 600-800 CE) does not detail any one method of deriving the cusps, but it does contain passages which mention that the distance between two cusps is a variable factor, as with unequal house cusps. Gauquelin used Placidus...?

The g-sectors are constructed like this so the distributions peak in the middle of these sectors.

Thanks for correcting me and clarifying that. So the peaks would be

GS1 around 20? above the ascendant (in the 12th)
GS2 around 20? behind the MC (in the 9th house)
GS3 around 15? beneath the descendant (in the 6th)
GS4 around 15? before the IC (in the 3rd)

Am I correct that there is a gradual build up of prominence leading up to the peak, and a sharp decline after it? Or is it more the case that anywhere within these sectors the planets are expected to be strong in effect, and anywhere outside of them they are not?

He explained that Mars had to be in a "weak" in order for the artistic sensibilities to emerge.

That does make some sense.

I used Rudhyarist reasoning to argue that those Mars placements are just as "strong" as the g-sector Mars placements, only it produced outstanding musicians and artists, who effectively used the Mars for that purpose.

Perhaps. I?m not so drawn to that explanation.

My point here is that Gauquelin's findings relate to houses and not just the angles.

I?m not sure that they do. At least I doubt it?s constructive to begin with that supposition. I?d much prefer to see a ?scientific? examination of natural astrology freed from the constraints of judicial elements such as houses, signs, dignities, etc, which are heavily impregnated by lore, divinational concepts, philosophical principles and symbolic reasoning. I know all that is part and parcel of the craft of astrology, and my experience is mainly within divinational branches of astrology, where the astrologer?s interpretation is key to unlocking the meaning of the chart, (hence personally I have a heavy reliance on the use of houses and such like). But still, I have never felt entirely at ease with the notion that these exist as external ?realities?, or that the foundation of any central truth they hold is fully understood by the astrologers that use them. Why not do Gauquelin?s work full justice and explore it on its own merits? Just set aside what these house positions are supposed to mean, and consider its merits in terms of supporting the very ancient view that the fundamental planetary characteristics are defined by issues that relate to angularity, ascending or declining motion, visibility, orientality/occidentality, etc.

I don't think astrologers should be trying to dismiss these results. Astrologers should be trying to explain them.

Yes, but more harm than good is done where we try to explain something we don?t yet fully understand. I still believe that Gauquelin is calling us to revaluate principles that were established through the simple observation that the Babylonians made, that planets which are angular are the most significant. The earliest roots of astrology were based upon observation and painstaking recording of data rather than philosophising, and what has been brought forward from Babylonian astrology into the mainstream tradition has proved to be a very firm root. The idea that planets which are rising and culminating are of leading significance, and those that are setting or declining are also significant, but less so, and those that are above the earth are more expressive than those under it, were all established long before we used the ecliptic as the means of measurement. I was wondering how this related to the division of local space, rather than ecliptic based measurement but I?m stuck for suggestions. The only thing I can say is that this numeration of houses really is a red herring. The reason they were numbered as we know them doesn?t contradict the underlying basis of diurnal motion; it supports it. Their numeration demonstrates the order that the stars within them rise over the ascendant and is related to the ancient practice of astronomers having two-hourly ?watches?, where the first watch would monitor the stars in the first house rising over the ascendant, the 2nd watch those in the 2nd house, and so on.

This sounds like the method of domification advanced by Johannes Vehlow and used in North Indian astrology. It is an equal house system with the 1st house cusp at 15 degrees before the ascendant. Is this the true system...?

Unfortunately any equal, or whole house system disassociates the 10th house from the MC. If you accept Gauquelin?s findings as significant, the MC has to be regarded as in some way pivotal.

You know, these sorts of discussions really stress me out!

Re: Whole Sign Houses

?While houses are very important in Vedic astrology, there is really only three in common use. The Whole Sign house system is probably the most widely used house system. In this system, the zodiac sign the ascendant falls in denotes the first house for that whole sign. The next sign is the second house; the next sign is the third house and so on. Apart from the ascendant, no house cusps are used.

"A variation to this is that of the Systems' Approach to Vedic astrology where the degree and minute of the ascendant is taken and is extended to the other signs. This is called the Most Effective Point (MEP) for that house.

"The other two house systems used in Vedic astrology are the Sripati house system and the Placidus house system (the one used in the west).

"The Placidus houses are only used in the Krishnamurti (KP) system. The Sripati house system (also known as the Hindu Bhava system) is like the Porphyry system used in western astrology (which will be explained in a later article) with the exception that the house cusps denote the centre of the house rather than the beginning of the house. This raises a good point - should we use house cusps as the beginning of a house or as the centre of a house?

?I know that in my tropical work, any planet that is within five degrees of the next house cusp, I usually interpret that as being more representative of the next house and so mentally move it there for analysis. This idea is not new as Ptolemy also made this suggestion but in the context that the beginning of the first house was five degrees earlier than the rising degree and thus for all of the other houses. The Gauquelin studies seem to also bear this idea out.?

Technical Tips 08: Houses & Cusps by Neville Lang.
http://www.vicastrology.net/ArticleNevi ... hTips8.htm

or ...

?Whole sign houses -
As the name suggests, in this system, the whole sign is treated as the house. The rising sign itself becomes the first house, from its very beginning to its end. The next sign is the second and the next sign from the second becomes the third and so on. In other words, wherever the rising degree falls the entire sign, from 0 degree to 30 degrees, is the first house.

"The M.C. ( culminating degree or Midheaven ) may or may not fall in the tenth sign. The ancient Greeks and Vedics used this. Modern Vedic astrologers still use this predominantly.

"This was a popular, in fact the oldest House system that the ancients used originally. There is no evidence that prior to Ptolemy, any other house system existed other than the whole signs. In this simple system houses and signs are interchangeable. The controversy of the cusps is not relevant at all here.?

Article ?Enigma of the Houses? by Dr Satya Prakash Chowdary

For classical references perhaps contact Neville Lang at VAA (Australia) or John Frawley who also makes reference to this in his "The Real Astrology Applied."

Kind regards,
TS

Gauquelin always supported astrology. I asked him about how he got into astrology, and here is the story based on what he told me.

I don't know what he said, but none of his original published works supports your story or the story you say he told you.

"Gauquelin published his statistics in 1955 in, L'influence des Astres (Denoel)," repeatedly maintaining that his results did not validate astrology at all but rather another, hitherto nameless celestial influence having nothing to do with astrology, which was like contending that Shakespeare's plays were not written by Shakespeare, but by someone also named William Shakespeare, who happened to be living at the same time and in the same place."

The Case for Astrology, by John Anthony West & Jan Gerhard Toonder Penguin books 1970 Suffolk, Great Britian. (p. 165)

He didn't write in English so I have to rely on secondary sources. Toonder and West cite several instances of Gauquelin's "violent anti-astrology bias." (p 167)

to wit: "These results (i.e. the miliatry leaders statistics I alluded to plus his studies on athletes - tc) were duly published in the second book, Les Hommes et les Astres, in which Gauquelin with redoubled ferocity insisted that his evidence was not evidence for astrology: 'There is not one point of rapport from a strictly scientific point of view, between the structure of the results obtained and still less between the spirit with which my statistics are obtained and astrology.' "

[Toonder and West p 169 citing Les Homes et les Astres, Denoel, p. 16]

I find it hard to believe that pro astrology Toonder and West made this up.

When this book was published in 1970, Gauquelin was still maintaining that his work did not validate astrology.

Do you believe that astrology works? If your answer is yes, then how do you know it works?

This is the sort of thing that could drive a sane man crazy. In order for me to believe astrology works I must adopt your worldview, which of course is the only correct worldview since science is the final arbiter of all truth. This is frankly ridiculous. How do you know anything? In point of fact just about the only thing we can "know" is that we exist. "I think, therefore I am." Anything else is perception or faith (or both?). Do you "know" that World War I ended on Nov 11, 1918? No you rely on what you've read that you choose to believe. Do you "know" what you had for breakfast? Not really. You're relying on your memory and any attorney can tell you that won't hold up in court against any good cross examination. Statistics and "science (which is only a method until it is elevated to the status of religion)" are not the only valid beliefs. How do you "know" gravity works? There certainly isn't any known mechanism to explain it. Do you "know" that the earth revolves around the Sun or do you accept others' word for it? You "know" that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, but ignore the fact that 2 out of 3 smokers never contact the disease? It isn't hard to go on and on an on.

If I were to rely on statistics or mechanism for my belief that astrology works I would surely be hard pressed to defend myself. There isn't enough legitimate scientific evidence of the validity of astrology to convince an advocate, much less a skeptic. Astrology is part of a worldview that fell out of favor. It is a philosophical belief, and perhaps a religious one, that does not require the god of statistical analysis or the imagined "omnipotence and infallibility" of "science" for acceptance. Everything is connected. That's why astrology works.

Tom

Everything is connected. That's why astrology works.

This I believe.

How do you know anything? In point of fact just about the only thing we can "know" is that we exist. "I think, therefore I am." Anything else is perception or faith (or both?).

Exactement!

Astrology is part of a worldview that fell out of favor. It is a philosophical belief, and perhaps a religious one, that does not require the god of statistical analysis or the imagined "omnipotence and infallibility" of "science" for acceptance.

Please see:

http://www.kheper.net/topics/paradigms/ ... nowing.htm

"Science in itself is simply an experimental method for understanding physical reality. It works by offering hypotheses than can be falsified. It is a superb methodology for understanding the physical universe, but not really very good for appreciating non-physical things."

My understanding surrounds the truth of things,
And my truth is mixed up in me,
And the truth of my descent is set forth by itself,
And when it was known it was altogether in me.

--Al Jilwah