Paul wrote:

What you mean is the CPA style of psychological astrology which tends to use Placidus.

I must emphasize I opened this thread for people to just feedback what system they actually use. That was it. It wasn't intended as a place to extensively set out your stall for your preferred house system as Atlantean has chosen to do. We could all do that.

I do think generationally the CPA/psychological approach to astrology is still very popular in local groups etc across the UK. The 1980's was a boom period for astrology and the books of people like Greene, Sasportas etc are still extremely popular with those astrologers. Up here in Scotland most people in groups are still using Placidus for natal although there are a few refusniks using equal or whole sign.

As Paul suggests modern astrology is not monolithic. You get astrologers like Rudhyar and Donna Cunningham using Campanus. In Europe the Huberists use Koch. Koch seems to be very popular in the USA too and Robert Hand used to use that system before he moved to Whole Sign houses. There also seems to be a grouping of astrologers using Topocentric/precessed charts heavily into timing/rectification like the late Alexander Marr , Isaac Starkman and our very own Atlantean. Although its supporters are obviously more diverse as I recently learned that quite traditional astrologers like Geoffrey Cornelius and Graeme Tobyn use Topcentric.

Despite its detractors equal houses are used by one of the most impressive modern astrologers I have met called Frank Clifford. Frank runs the London School of Astrology with others. He is a strong advocate of equal houses and supports this with a vast array of data research. I believe the Faculty of Astrological Studies (UK) still teach equal houses along with quadrant systems like Placidus. Then of course you have followers of Ebertein or Uranian astrology that may avoid using any house system at all.

However, I do think the online revolution is changing the demographics of house system loyalties. Once only exposed to only Placidus or equal people are now seeing other systems advocated such as whole sign (hellenistic-early medieval or Indian) or Alcabitius. The popularity of whole sign in our ongoing poll seems to reflect that. Although Skyscript is clearly biased towards a heavily traditional sample of astrologers.

Someone above suggested different house systems suit different people. Ultimately, unless we want to be fundamentalists about it that is a reasonabale view. I personally see astrology as a mantic art in which various approachhes can be utilised. The only alternative is a narrow perspective that only one zodiac, one house system and one rulership system are the one true way. I do have an approach that works for me. But that is as far as I go. I dont take a universalist view that what works for me must by definition be right for everyone. I seek to defend my position with logic because it makes sense to me and fits my experience. However, that doesn't mean I necessarily expect others to agree.

Another perspective was suggested by Bernadette Brady. She suggests different house systems may be suited for different things. For example, some systems better for a personality profile while another for timing events etc. I know a lot of people swear by Regiomontanus for horary.

Plus many astrologers utilise more than one system. Robert Zoller taught his students both Alcabitius and Whole sign and advocated looking at charts with both. Astrologers like Steven Birchfield adopts this approach today. Following the position of Robert Schmidt , Benjamin Dykes suggests using quadrant house to assess planetary strength and whole sign houses for topics.

Clearly, then there are numerous approches available. The dillemma is not the diversity of house systems but rather for those who adopt the rigid perception that there is only one true way to practice the art.

If we are honest our preferred house system is not based on any kind of scientific empiricism ( I doubt the validity of this anyway) but rather reflects the kind of astrology we were taught and the type we practice.

Hence those into whole sign are often inspired by hellenistic, Indian or early medieval astrology. Alcabitius reflects later medieval and renaissance astrology. Those using Regio are often using 17th century sources like Lilly or Morin. I could go on but you get the point. In a historical sense there have been passing fashions in house systems just as there is other aspects of astrology.

Mark

Paul wrote:
Not quite, the Huber methods utilised by the Astrological Psychology school puts a great emphasis on using Koch - in places 'demanding' that it be used.

What you mean is the CPA style of psychological astrology which tends to use Placidus.

I wonder if it might save time, space, RSI's and breath ......... if I was to pm you my intended posts and then you could summarise, clarify, even expand upon the alternative meanings projected into them, and post them as your own?

If unsure as to the merits of this, can I propose another poll entitled coq up or coq au originaire, incidentally the mot sur la rue in the Sorbonne's Bistros is this bird is inevitably a Catastrophe with a young Burgundy!!

My point was/is if an Astrologer linked to a form, school, approach, mentality....proposes that Person A with the Moon in the 3rd in Sagittarius regards their bedtime book being out of sight as a fate on a par with Mum saying no milk today darling, then a week or book later a 'colleague' suggests the Moon is actually in the 2nd and therefore this delineation is Ballsup-Huber-dash, or somesuch, we are in mighty confusing and problematic, if not refundable, terrain.

The notion now and then mooted, particularly post Cornelius's influential cat and pigeons tome, that all systems might or could 'work' in the 'right' hands I am inclined to think was somewhat spat out to dry in the infamous ''Under One Sky'' book, ...........??

One reason I still use Placidus is the fact that my 3rd cusp is exactly on the degree of my only sibling ASC.
The IC is my mothers ASC. It may just be coincidence but...

Mark wrote: Despite its detractors equal houses are used by one of the most impressive modern astrologers I have met called Frank Clifford. Frank runs the London School of Astrology with others.

As a past student of this school this is likely where I get my preference for equal signs. Though nowadays I sort of use them on my steam having been convinced of their usage from my own experience as well.

Nixx wrote:I wonder if it might save time, space, RSI's and breath ......... if I was to pm you my intended posts and then you could summarise, clarify, even expand upon the alternative meanings projected into them, and post them as your own?

Your sarcasm aside, I'm just pointing out that the idea that Placidus "is the default system for the Psych crowd" is only particular to one instance/stream of the psych crowd. Campanus was more popular earlier in the last century, and today different psychological schools prefer different methods. It can depend what is meant by the psych crowd, you regularly seem to take a very specific and exclusive view of that denotes a psychological view to astrology but really the net is much wider than you appear to sometimes acknowledge.

Damon wrote:

One reason I still use Placidus is the fact that my 3rd cusp is exactly on the degree of my only sibling ASC.
The IC is my mothers ASC. It may just be coincidence but...

I suspect that kind of highly subjective argument actually influences many astrologers choice of house system. Apart from our teachers or school of astrology you often hear people going on about how a different system cant be right as it changes their planets by house or house rulers. Some people seem to favour one system as it shifts all their planets into better houses!

This outlook ignores the fact that in ancient-medieval or Jyotish there are numerous additional techniques that give you further insights on such matters such as lots/parts, dwads, antiscion or divisional charts (vargas). There is also fixed stars and midpoints in modern astrology.

Mark

Unfortunately Arabic parts arent of much help since most astrologers only know how to use Part of fortune.
I noticed that the method for Part of mother is the same as for part of secret enemies. Does that mean our mothers are our hidden enemies?

Hello Mark,

Re: "It wasn't intended as a place to extensively set out your stall for your preferred house system as Atlantean has chosen to do."

There is no stall as I am not selling anything. I am speaking from my experience. I appreciate that everyone does not agree with me. I would be self-questioning in the extreme if they did!!!

Let me be quite clear and concise about WHY Topocentric... If one has a very accurately-timed chart and uses Topocentric houses, they will find that in Primary Directions (K?hr method), in Secondary Progressions, in Progressed Sidereal Solar Returns (and also in the CONVERSE of these systems) event-by-event pointers to the exact same intermediate cusps are found (to less than 0? 11' of arc). Anyone with a mathematical background or statistics-savvy will appreciate the multiple-lottery-win odds of all these systems all pointing to the same cusps by coincidence.

Re: "We could all do that."

With massively varying degrees of success.

You are right that you asked which house system we would like to see the posted charts in. My assumption was that you not only wanted to know which ones, but perhaps might appreciate WHY as well. ie. it's a forum thread not just a poll

If this discussion is more like a hostile witness on the witness stand where we can only answer definitively without any explanation or color, then perhaps that should be stated early on as well. "Which house system would you like to see? (one word answers please)"

Summarizing... I literally do not care what house system anyone (else) uses. You can make one up on the fly if it works for you. I am speaking only from my experience, which is that across-the-board Topocentric gives very tight, appropriate aspects in Primary Directions, Secondary Progressions, and Progressed Sidereal Solar Returns across entire lists of events.

Sorry, Mark, if somehow my elaboration is stealing from the original thrust of the thread. Please understand that when I see the poll question and see Topocentric not on the list, it is EQUIVOCAL to the following math question:

Which number would you rather answer "2 + 2 =" with?

a) 7

b) Infinity

c) Undefined

d) Equal houses

In short, my answer ain't on the list, but it should be.

Take care, Mark...and thanks for some food for thought...

James

From what I see Topocentric gives very similar charts to Placidus. It should be easy to test Atlantean ideas with progressions. i got good results with Primaries and Placidus anyway

Hello Paul,

I must admit that I love your deeply reasoning style of discussion!

Re: "Okay, I don't want to get into issues of empiricity..."

That sounds like when the defense attorney says to the judge, "can we discuss some of the more subjective elements of this case and not focus so much on the facts?"

Re: Level of complexity in calculating

I already agreed on that point that complexity doesn't have any connection with validity. I am an Occam's Razor type, so have no use for unnecessary complexity.

Re: "The question of the houses may be as simple as asking "what are you using them for?" and that question may be surprisingly answered very differently amongst different astrologers."

Yes, and that indicates my personal bias, as my goal is reliable and very tight aspects among symbolically appropriate planets and cusps across entire event lists. I realize it is mathematically intensive and definitely not for everyone.

Re: "If you're looking to see "sign for house" symbolism, you will not find it with topocentric houses."

???

Re: "It can be a mistake to think we're all looking for the same thing when we use a house system or that there is only one 'right' way to do use them either."

As I said, I was sharing my experience. Whether someone adopts the methods is their (free) choice. I literally don't care. I wouldn't want someone telling me what to do either. That being said, I wish someone would have presented Topocentric to me much sooner!

Re: "You're assuming a priori what indicates a 'best performance'"

Absolutely, do I admit guilt. Reliable, tight aspects (to just minutes of arc) with astrologically correct symbolism that functions across the entire event list and is corroborated in Primary Directions, Secondary Progressions, and Progressed Sidereal Solar Returns (and their converses) is my goal. If it doesn't work correctly across all of these, the birthtime can not possibly be correct.

Re: "...you're assuming that what you want from the houses is what everyone wants from them."

No, that would be my assumption, I think, if I were telling THEM to use Topocentric. I am merely expressing my experience with Topocentric. Don't assume that my enthusiasm of finding (finally) Topocentric is a blanket statement of what others should use. It isn't.

Re: "I likewise do not believe that there's any evidence of this - and by evidence I mean the claims that one corresponds better to events in the native's life more than another."

Agreed...all evidence I have seen was anecdotal and the cases that I reviewed showed only one house system that gave the tightest average orb.

Re: "...as being analogous to demanding that the 'true' way to measure a length of distance is in miles rather than kilometers..:"

This one I can't agree with, Paul, as if we measure a distance in miles and kilometers, they are basically equivalent. ie. 88 kilometers = 55 miles (approx.) Saturn in the 3rd House does not equal Saturn in the 2nd House. Saturn conjunct the 8th cusp (to 0? 3' arc) for death of Father does not equal Saturn conjunct the 8th cusp (to 1? 10' arc). Primary Directions only need 0? 11' in which to mature. Systems that induce larger orbs are by necessity less precise.

Take care

James

Paul wrote:
Your sarcasm aside, I'm just pointing out that the idea that Placidus "is the default system for the Psych crowd" is only particular to one instance/stream of the psych crowd. Campanus was more popular earlier in the last century, and today different psychological schools prefer different methods. It can depend what is meant by the psych crowd, you regularly seem to take a very specific and exclusive view of that denotes a psychological view to astrology but really the net is much wider than you appear to sometimes acknowledge.

Every time I write Psych crowd I could insert a Para such as don?t confuse this Anima Mundi Kleinistic lens with the irreverent potions, notions or systems de maisons of the likes of Rudhyar, 'Huber' Tyl. Jones, Leo, Carter et al whose hymn sheets can often be antagonistic, oblivious or a priori rigor mortis to it - but a bit wordeeeeee methinks. Perhaps we need a sticky or some such herein? For an exorbitant fee I could muster a sentence or two through gritted gums.

The reality is at an AA shindig or some such most if not all will know what terrain is being covered were the subject to appear, but here in Skyscripty cyber space we have folks from over the pond, and a few early doorers who are not in this 30/40 plus in the main British even European demographic thus the occasional if not endemic befuddlements and hold on a minute fellaisms!

Atlantean wrote: That sounds like when the defense attorney says to the judge, "can we discuss some of the more subjective elements of this case and not focus so much on the facts?"

Not really, more an acknowledgement that that isn't what Mark had in mind when he started this thread. I think this serves more as a general poll of what house systems are currently popular amongst skyscript posters rather than a definitive study into any truth claims of any house system in particular, or any empirical study of their success.

Yes, and that indicates my personal bias, as my goal is reliable and very tight aspects among symbolically appropriate planets and cusps across entire event lists. I realize it is mathematically intensive and definitely not for everyone.

Right, I guess when I uses houses I'm not always looking for anything like that level of exactitude. Sometimes I just want to get a feel for the chart and I really think equal is very good at that, but this is probably because it is the house system I learned astrology with. I have seen astrologers render a lot of accurate information from equal as well.

Re: "If you're looking to see "sign for house" symbolism, you will not find it with topocentric houses."

???

Sorry, this may not have come across well, I just meant to clarify that non-quadrant house systems do "sign for house" symbolism well, something lost in topocentric (and all other quadrant based divisions). So if I wanted to examine a profection very quickly, casting the nativity in whole or equal lets me see quickly where the profection comes to and what planets may need to be handed over. Obviously if you don't use these methods then it won't matter. I was just trying to show that these house systems can demonstrate some other kinds of data very quickly for the user - though obviously not the kind you are looking for perhaps.

No, that would be my assumption, I think, if I were telling THEM to use Topocentric.

My comment was meant in light of the suggestion of studying the houses empirically. In other you're assuming that what you want out of a house system is the same for others - ie, something which could be empirically tested using methods like primary directions (as per your previous post). My point was to reiterate the idea that why we use a house system may change for all of us and the idea of testing empirically for primary directions etc. wouldn't lend well to what everyone is looking for.

This one I can't agree with, Paul, as if we measure a distance in miles and kilometers, they are basically equivalent. ie. 88 kilometers = 55 miles (approx.) Saturn in the 3rd House does not equal Saturn in the 2nd House. Saturn conjunct the 8th cusp (to 0? 3' arc) for death of Father does not equal Saturn conjunct the 8th cusp (to 1? 10' arc). Primary Directions only need 0? 11' in which to mature. Systems that induce larger orbs are by necessity less precise.

I accept that criticism, I had something very particular in mind so it was not a good general analogy to use.


Ultimately when it comes to house systems I take a live and let live approach. We all use our house systems for our own reasons. For some I have definitely seen what Damon suggested regarding choosing the house system that gives you the chart you think fits better for you. However in my experience things are seldom so simple and as Mark indicates, something the native believed was due to the planet in one house, may in fact be because of something else entirely. For that matter I've seen people do the same with zodiacs, and in both situations also seen it happening because they prefer what the chart might indicate about themselves. For example I've seen someone change a house system to put Venus in the first, because that means they're very fair and do the 'right thing' (apparently), and equally I've seen someone switch from Tropical to sidereal at the drop of a hat when they thought they could get Sagittarius rising because "capricorn rising means I"m boring". I sort of take those arguments with a pinch of salt of course, but it does show that we can be attached to our house systems for many reasons, not all of them astrologically sound. Similarly we see regularly that people use Regiomontanus for horary because "the ancients did it" even though they didn't. Or because "if it's good enough for Lilly and he was an expert, then it's good enough for me". I think we do things like that a lot. I still use Regiomontanus for horary for no better reason than that's the way I was shown.

I suspect that someone who believes in their house system conforming to empirical study would be greatly frustrated by those claims or that rationale. It's good to see what other people use though and sometimes just as good to ask "why do you use it".

Paul wrote:

Not really, more an acknowledgement that that isn't what Mark had in mind when he started this thread. I think this serves more as a general poll of what house systems are currently popular amongst Skyscript posters rather than a definitive study into any truth claims of any house system in particular, or any empirical study of their success.

Exactly. I thought that was fairly obvious from my initial post. It clearly wasn't an invitation to debate the intrinsic merits of one house system vs all others. It was simply to take a straw poll of what house system people wanted to see charts displayed in.

As for not including Topocentric in the poll I already explained why it was removed in favour of Equal. The system only allows 6 options. If it was up to me I would have included Porphyry, Topocentric, and Krusinski too. Although judging by Equal's lack of popularity here maybe I should have left Topocentric up!

I would be happy to open a thread on Topocentric houses but not just as a showccase to advocate the system as I am sure Atlantean would like. The system has come in for very heavy criticism by a lot of mathematically inclined astrologers. I would be interested to see how its advocates handle such objections.

Mark