so basically you are saying that maybe WSH system could be insufficient due to the nature of the actual rising and setting of the signs in the sky? This does sound plausible, plus I recall reading about how lily paid attention to signs of long and short ascension; so...if lily acknowledged that such things exist and do in fact affect the interpretation of the chart, then I guess that would make a solid case for the actual physical constellations (as opposed to the WSH non physically based zodiac) having an effect on us, which in turn would somewhat invalidate the WSH system as well. If of course, I am understanding everything correctly. Sorry but I cant help but feel that maybe I am a little bit out of my league when it comes to discussing complex astrological matters like this...

Good morning,

Hellenistic authors, ex. gr. Vettius Valens, mentioned and often emphasised the importance of the differences in rising times amongst the tropical signs. If ones combines them with the signs' relative acceleration or slowing, for example fast and slowing Ari?s and Libra, slow and accelerating Capricornus and Cancer, one has six pairs of dynamic, symmetrical astronomical movements characterising the tropical signs.

All 'demonstrations' of the validity of topical place systems in genethliacal astrology i have seen to date have relied on a few or several positively chosen example charts coupled with much often verbose justification why this or that system seems particularly coherent in itself and / or less incoherent than others. Faithful reliance on often contradictory 'traditions', the older the better, is also frequently practised. Although one may doubt the possibility of absolute verification of anything, even extensive relative validations of topical place systems based on say 250 or more randomly selected Rodden AA nativities do not yet, to my knowledge exist to date, let alone with a demonstration of significant probability.

Alas, the ancient Greek philosophical school of the sceptics, summarised well by Sextus Empiricus for example in his "Outlines of Pyrrhonism", has largely been deliberately ignored by proponents of dogmatic schools like Platonism, Neoplatonism, Epicurianism, Aristotelianism and Stoicism.

As in the past, questions about astrological house systems will in the future probably continue to provide many pages and much revenue for astrological authors. For example, the system of clockwise houses extensively proposed by Monsieur Jacques Dorsan and practised by Monsieur Luc Audy and Madame Marie Delclos, has received, perhaps due to lack of requisite language skills, little attention to date amongst astrological authors of the English language.

Best regards,

lihin

Kenneth Johnson wrote:I'm having difficulties here with terms like "the correct house system."

The picture is far too complex to be remanded to an almost impossible search for "the one and only" correct system.


With all this incredible diversity. how is it even possible to hypothesize that only one single system can be correct and all the others must be wrong?

I agree with every word. I believe astrologers practicing traditional astrology are like archaelogists. There is no such a thing like the right or the wrong method, there are texts we investigate in order to better understand traditional astrology.

The stuff i'm less persuaded is the empyrical method. I've a great experience about reading every kind of techinques and I generally see that everything works for the author of judgement.

Moreover I noticed that some techiniques seem to better flow with whole sign houses, like profections, others can work very well with house division.

margherita

Good afternoon,

Since no really convincing research has to the best of my very limited knowledge been published to date concerning astrological systems of topical places, i have opted in practice for whole sign houses for topical interpretations and for a quadrant system like the 'Classical' system to determine the relative tendencies of planets to action or quiescence.

Since heliacal phenomena concern the local horizon, methinks Dr. George C. Noonan would have been more coherent to set off the beginning of the first topical place by five degrees of altitude (horizontal coordinate system) above the Horoscope (Ascendant) and to translate the result into ecliptical longitude rather than simply to subtract five ecliptical degrees.

Best regards,

lihin

I wonder if the plethora of house systems is really a reflection of the fact that the house cusps are not really sharp linear features, but fuzzy bands marking a gradual change from one house to the next.

The 'six degree rule' in horary astrology would appear to be a nod towards a notion of fuzzy house cusps where the actual house system does not matter that much

Geoffrey wrote:The 'six degree rule' in horary astrology would appear to be a nod towards a notion of fuzzy house cusps where the actual house system does not matter that much

I wonder whether this 'six degree rule' is not a "five degree rule" in reality?

johannes susato wrote: I wonder whether this 'six degree rule' is not a "five degree rule" in reality?

Well, does it really matter? And, Coley varies the rule depending on the angular size of the house....

Geoffrey wrote:

johannes susato wrote: I wonder whether this 'six degree rule' is not a "five degree rule" in reality?

Well, does it really matter?

Should it not? In my opinion the rule should be honored by denominating it correctly. Else it is a bit confusing.

Geoffrey wrote:And, Coley varies the rule depending on the angular size of the house....

Is it not one sixth, which Coley takes of the degrees the house is containing? So perhaps this is the six, which made you find the '6 degrees rule'?

To the best of my remembrance it was Morin who postulated the 'one sixth rule' already in his Astrologia Gallica, and who was much admired by Coley.

Geoffrey, can you help me to find the quotation of Coley, please? I tried in vain as yet.

Johannes