Michael Sternbach wrote:Yes, I do look at the MC when delineating a chart ? as a sensitive point signifying the native's goals and vocation.

Thanks, I wasn't sure if you were implying that you ignore the MC-IC as not being useful, so thought I'd clarify as I wasn't sure of anyone who ignores the MC so would be interesting if you had just used the nonagesimal alone for everything the MC would do. As someone who uses both the Placidus and Equal house cusps the most dominantly, I like to look at both.

I see I need to break this down further:

Thanks for breaking this down, both in reply to me and to others. Actually the celestial mechanics wasn't the issue this time, as I understood this already. I think I was understanding something different by 'highest' when I read this first. I see you mean the planet with the most altitude at a given moment will be the one 90? from the ascendant.

In the equal house system, the 10th house cusp has the same relation to the zodiacal ascendant like the MC to the equatorial ascendant. Why then do we mingle these two systems for deriving our quadrants?

So far I'm following all the celestial mechanics (I think) but I am still not sure where the issue lies. Hopefully you can stick with me and help me out.

I think perhaps that you are viewing the matter abstractly as being a series of concentric circles and that we're using the 'axis' of one circle and comparing to the 'axis' of another circle and that this is where the apples and pears bit is coming from? This is an assumption but I want to be sure I understand that this is your position.

But really what I was thinking of is more imagining if I am standing and watching a planet that rises and sets as I think this is more 'true' to the heart of astrology. I would observe that planet rise in the sky until it can't rise anymore and then it would set. And really our quadrant based house systems are just based on this observation, as I mentioned in my previous post. This isn't really comparing apples and pears, it is not that we are abstractly dealing with two circles which are agnostic to one another, we are dealing with observation of the sky from a fixed position on the earth. Real life physics is what mixes all these circles and we triangulate against these circles to track planets as they appear to rise and set. This is the whole premise of quadrant based house systems, at least as I understand them.
A whole other philosophical premise, not predicated on imagining observing planets rise and set, is in division of just the ecliptic alone, which has its own advantages of course but is philosophically different to dividing using the quadrants. So with this system then we can observe the position of a planet along the ecliptic (assuming 0 latitude obviously) highest in the sky at that particular moment. Imagining we have two planets, one 90? from the ascendant, we know that this planet has the most altitude in the night sky at that particular moment in time, but we may see another planet at the MC and we know that this planet is the highest it can culminate. Both sets of information is useful. And both are 'real'. If we decide to draw arbitrary divisions of the night sky based on one or based on the other is no more or less real, and we're not comparing apples and pears in doing so. Both are real and valid divisions.

So I guess in answer to your question:

Now, why do we derive our (unequal) house systems based on the ascension of the zodiac but on the highest point of the equator? Isn't this mixing apples and pears?

The reason would be that in one form of division we are observing what is the point with the greatest altitude in the sky (90? from the ascendant, and so an equal division perhaps), and in another we are observing what is the point at which a given planetary body may culminate.
This makes particular sense to me if we ignore secondary motion from this equation and were to imagine that planets are static at the points they are at in the ecliptic. In this sense we're observing two things, the "life cycle" of a given planet in that 24 hours - namely the point at which it can rise no more in the night sky at that part of the ecliptic, and then also a more static momentary thing, namely, which part of the ecliptic has the most altitude.

Both are valid surely? We're not comparing apples and pears, we're just looking at two different things.

Konrad wrote:Ha ha, right yeah, thanks Larxene. It's gone right over my head that one. I have subscribed to that Astronomy course you mentioned a while back, so when it begins again, I will get it, I'm sure.

I think the recent example with Saturn and Mars will probably make this much clearer but if not, you need to remember that the ecliptic isn't static in regards how much is rising over the horizon. In other words at certain times of the day you might have only a bit of the ecliptic rising over the horizon, in other words the highest point of the ecliptic, in terms of altitude, is quite low at those moments, and a few hours later the highest altitude that the ecliptic can reach may be much greater.

With that in mind, the MC is showing the area in the sky at which any planet along the ecliptic at that position will no longer be able to reach a higher altitude. Which isn't to say that other planets, at other parts of the ecliptic, couldn't reach a higher altitude at other times.

Michael Sternbach wrote: Apr 21, 2014 10:43 am

I guess there are traditional astrologers on this forum who are using various kinds of directions with equal house systems. I would love to hear about your experiences!

james_m replied: Apr 22, 2014 5:21 pm

i am not going to box myself into whether i am a this or the other type of astrologer, but i do use different types of directions, including primary directions. i just don't rely on data to house cusps unless it is data to the angle cusps. i guess that means i will consider data to 4 house cusps, as opposed to 12. that means i weigh the ascendant and midheaven axis much greater then i do any other house cusp gotten via some sort of integration of the 2 different axis.

Actually, to be precise, this means that you are applying directions to only two equal house cusps. Thanks anyway for your contribution but I'm still hoping for some forum members using primary or other directions in conjunction with an equal house system (no pun intended) willing to share their experiences.

james_m wrote: Apr 22, 2014 5:21 pm

fwiw - there are very few astrologers discussing primary directions, let alone the different options they use to arrive at any conclusions they offer on the data. it is sort of like saying i sailed across the ocean on a sunny day without mentioning what the wind or waves were doing.. apparently since so few are discussing pd's we are supposed to be content just being told this is the pd that i used to arrive at this conclusion!

I agree, useful literature on primary directions seems to be rare and far between. In this regard, I understand that Martin Gansten has written a noteworthy book on the subject that I will need to look at sometime soon. I wonder if it mentions equal houses?

Michael Sternbach wrote: Apr 21, 2014 10:43 am

Quite recently, scientist started questioning the value of statistical methods themselves.

james_m wrote: Apr 22, 2014 5:21 pm

can it be replicated in some type of statistical study? does it matter? is it just someone's word against someone else? this brings me to your last quote down below.. is there some article you'd like to share discussing this? how recent is 'recent'? Thanks.

James, quite an amazing article about scientists finding fault with certain hitherto generally accepted foundations of statistical analysis was published just a couple of months ago, however in a German ?subscribers only? science magazine; probably not of too much help here. I will try to find something available for free and in English on this study - if successful, I will post accordingly on this thread.

Regards
Michael

Yeah, like calculus, astronomy is difficult and confusing. Let's try this one:


As you can see, Saturn culminates above the Moon's culmination point. So Saturn at its peak has a higher altitude than the Moon at its peak. The same thing can happen to the Sun as long as the ecliptic is not at the zenith.

Which will very often be the case, especially if you live above or below 23.5 degrees North or South.





As for the original inquiry about why we use the horizonal ascendant but not use the horizonal zenith but instead we use the zodiacal zenith (which is the Midheaven, the highest point the Sun reaches), well, here's my opinion.

I think it's because the MC point in the chart is given meaning by the Sun, NOT the horizon. The Sun generally signifies promotion, honour, social visibility and basically all forms of loftiness. So logically, the culmination of the Sun is where we can find these things, not the highest part of our horizon.

Michael, Paul and Larxene. Thanks, I think I get it now! I will read over again what was written and get back to you if I come a cropper once more.

Larxene wrote: I think it's because the MC point in the chart is given meaning by the Sun, NOT the horizon. The Sun generally signifies promotion, honour, social visibility and basically all forms of loftiness. So logically, the culmination of the Sun is where we can find these things, not the highest part of our horizon.

Whilst I agree that the Sun signifies those things, and that we ought to connect some of the signification of the Sun with the MC, I really think the MC gets it's meaning from its inherent properties of denoting the highest point at which a given point of the ecliptic can rise in the sky. I do think that the whole concept was probably best observed with the Sun, but really could be applied to any planet. The midheaven is the highest point that anything on the ecliptic can reach on that day and so it refers to this same sense of visibility and recognition, a planet on the MC is at the pinnacle of its altitude for that given day.

Paul wrote: Apr 23, 2014 1:26 pm

Thanks, I wasn't sure if you were implying that you ignore the MC-IC as not being useful, so thought I'd clarify as I wasn't sure of anyone who ignores the MC so would be interesting if you had just used the nonagesimal alone for everything the MC would do. As someone who uses both the Placidus and Equal house cusps the most dominantly, I like to look at both.

?As above so below? - there seems to be nothing (observable or mathematically deduced) in the sky inherently useless astrologically; everything is reflecting something happening on Earth.

I'm now just waiting for some astrologers to start delineating what it means if you have the International Space Station in the tenth house, and in Conjunction with Hidalgo.

But Paul, your comment actually implies an interesting question: What exactly is the difference between the MC and the nonagesimal as far as their astrological significance is concerned?

I was in fact replacing the MC by the nonagesimal for awhile, but eventually I decided in favour of the additional significance the MC brings into play, besides the meaning of the tenth house.

German astrologer Bernd A. Mertz was also using the equal house system along with the MC/IC axis. Mertz suggested that the positioning of the MC in different houses signifies different natives' vocation or true calling as opposed to their profession (10th house). The two will often be in accordance with each other but when i.e. the MC is in the 9th house the native may be more inclined toward finding spiritual fulfilment than a professional career. The house position of the IC is considered analogously.

What about you Paul, do you give special significance to the nonagesimal, perhaps by considering aspects to it?

So far I'm following all the celestial mechanics (I think) but I am still not sure where the issue lies. Hopefully you can stick with me and help me out.

I think perhaps that you are viewing the matter abstractly as being a series of concentric circles and that we're using the 'axis' of one circle and comparing to the 'axis' of another circle and that this is where the apples and pears bit is coming from? This is an assumption but I want to be sure I understand that this is your position.

Yes, that's right.

But really what I was thinking of is more imagining if I am standing and watching a planet that rises and sets as I think this is more 'true' to the heart of astrology. I would observe that planet rise in the sky until it can't rise anymore and then it would set. And really our quadrant based house systems are just based on this observation, as I mentioned in my previous post.

This seems to be the rationale for using unequal quadrants.

This isn't really comparing apples and pears, it is not that we are abstractly dealing with two circles which are agnostic to one another, we are dealing with observation of the sky from a fixed position on the earth.

It's a matter of perspective, really (no pun intended).

Real life physics is what mixes all these circles and we triangulate against these circles to track planets as they appear to rise and set. This is the whole premise of quadrant based house systems, at least as I understand them.

Which implies a direct translation of astronomical observations to the chart. But, um, this is not really what we as astrologers are doing, most of the time.

All of astrology's elements other than the celestial bodies are basically mathematical deductions, plus our chart is a simplification of complex astronomical reality in various ways. The question is then, which abstractions do we prefer?

A whole other philosophical premise, not predicated on imagining observing planets rise and set, is in division of just the ecliptic alone, which has its own advantages of course but is philosophically different to dividing using the quadrants.

This philosophical difference is really at the core of the controversy regarding the two basic types of house system, in my opinion.

Both are valid surely? We're not comparing apples and pears, we're just looking at two different things.

I would say, we are looking at the same things differently.

Just to clarify, I don't deny that there may be validity to the unequal houses approach, also. Rather, I am trying to discern its rationale.

At the same time, one of my purposes in this thread is to demonstrate that the nowadays widely neglected equal house system, despite or because of its simplicity, has a sound astronomical and philosophical base. It is anything but primitive, outdated or unscientific.

Paul wrote: Apr 23, 2014 4:05 pm

? you need to remember that the ecliptic isn't static in regards how much is rising over the horizon. In other words at certain times of the day you might have only a bit of the ecliptic rising over the horizon, in other words the highest point of the ecliptic, in terms of altitude, is quite low at those moments, and a few hours later the highest altitude that the ecliptic can reach may be much greater.

At any time, exactly half of the ecliptic is rising over the horizon. What you mean here is the varying altitude of the zodiac, obviously.

The reason would be that in one form of division we are observing what is the point with the greatest altitude in the sky (90? from the ascendant, and so an equal division perhaps), and in another we are observing what is the point at which a given planetary body may culminate.
This makes particular sense to me if we ignore secondary motion from this equation and were to imagine that planets are static at the points they are at in the ecliptic. In this sense we're observing two things, the "life cycle" of a given planet in that 24 hours - namely the point at which it can rise no more in the night sky at that part of the ecliptic, and then also a more static momentary thing, namely, which part of the ecliptic has the most altitude.

It becomes clear that the former approach is highlighting the time-like side of the wheel of houses - especially in the case of the Placidus system.

The latter approach makes a spatially based division. There are systems other than equal doing this (i.e. Campanus, Regiomontanus), but they start out by dividing a celestial great circle different from the ecliptic. The equal house system is taking the more simple and direct approach.

Larxene wrote: Apr 24, 2014 4:50 am

I think it's because the MC point in the chart is given meaning by the Sun, NOT the horizon. The Sun generally signifies promotion, honour, social visibility and basically all forms of loftiness. So logically, the culmination of the Sun is where we can find these things, not the highest part of our horizon.

Paul replied: Apr 24, 2014 10:25 am

Whilst I agree that the Sun signifies those things, and that we ought to connect some of the signification of the Sun with the MC, I really think the MC gets it's meaning from its inherent properties of denoting the highest point at which a given point of the ecliptic can rise in the sky. I do think that the whole concept was probably best observed with the Sun, but really could be applied to any planet. The midheaven is the highest point that anything on the ecliptic can reach on that day and so it refers to this same sense of visibility and recognition, a planet on the MC is at the pinnacle of its altitude for that given day.

Obviously, if we look at the wheel of houses as analogous to the zodiac, we could conclude that just like the Sun revolves around the former in one year, he circles around the latter in one day (regardless of the particular system used). In either case, the Sun's circle serves then also the measuring circle for the other celestial bodies.

BTW, pretty graph, Larxene! - Thanks.

Theoretically, we can use the nonagesimal (reminds me of infinitesimals) to mark the highest part a planet can reach in a native's individual horizon, at which point, the planet's natural qualities become emphasised in that particular individual's life.

[THIS PART WAS EDITED BECAUSE I MADE A MISCONCEPTION.]



Michael,

Mertz observation/speculation is interesting. I have two anecdotal evidence for this, as I was using the Equal House system when working with Maternus's delineation material.

First, I have the MC in the 9th house by the EH system. Indications of education and philosophy is very prominent in my life. At six years old, I spent my free time reading detective novels like Famous Five, Trixie Belden, etc (English was not my native language, but I had a preference for it; I mainly learned it from reading crime novels). I began thinking about the meaning of life around that time. When I was younger I was quite the idealistic and philosophical person; my tendency to philosophise (which got me into questioning the education system) got me in trouble with my friends and teachers.

Even now, I spent my time learning all sorts of things when my peers are already completing school and preparing for their profession. A nerdy person, I dabbled with the Rubik's cube (11 seconds was my best), chess, math, psychology, mechanics and so on. Perhaps the greatest indication is my persistent study of astrology.

The second person I have in mind is Sherloc-- I mean, Arthur Conan Doyle . Using the EH system, he has the MC in the 8th house! Now, presumably we all know he created one of the most popular fictional detectives of all time. When we talk about detectives, we talk about crime, but most importantly, death. He was not originally a writer; his works simply got popular. If the MC was in the 10th, he may have been more prominent as a writer before he started the Holmes series.

Using Whole Signs, his MC would be in the 9th.

Please excuse me for my ramblings.



The picture was from Stellarium, a free open-source software that is very useful for astronomical and astrological enthusiasts alike.

Michael Sternbach wrote: ?As above so below? - there seems to be nothing (observable or mathematically deduced) in the sky inherently useless astrologically; everything is reflecting something happening on Earth.

I'm now just waiting for some astrologers to start delineating what it means if you have the International Space Station in the tenth house, and in Conjunction with Hidalgo.

Ha, I understand what you mean. For me I think both the MC and the nonagesimal are both valid astronomical positions that a planet can be said to be "at its highest", and so are equally valid.

I do think the question of what is the significance of both is interesting. I tend to use them both more or less evenly as indicating issues of career and recognition etc.

German astrologer Bernd A. Mertz was also using the equal house system along with the MC/IC axis. Mertz suggested that the positioning of the MC in different houses signifies different natives' vocation or true calling as opposed to their profession (10th house). The two will often be in accordance with each other but when i.e. the MC is in the 9th house the native may be more inclined toward finding spiritual fulfilment than a professional career. The house position of the IC is considered analogously.

I was taught astrology using the equal house system, and this has always been one of the things I have enjoyed about using it. I would probably, now, change it slightly to be more that those with a 9th house MC are more comfortable away from the spotlight than those with MC in the 10th.

What about you Paul, do you give special significance to the nonagesimal, perhaps by considering aspects to it?

One of the things I like about the equal house system, unique to it, is that the house cusps represent an aspectual relationship to the ascendant. Detouring for a second to Hellenistic astrology we have the idea of planets which are ten signs away hurling its rays in a manner which overcomes the planet to which it casts its ray. And with the nonagesimal we have any planet positioned here doing just that to the ascendant, and so I think of this whole area of the sky as being particularly heightened even if for only this reason, in fact I wondered if it wasn't the other way around and that planets at the equal 10th were clearly the most heightened they could be in the sky and that this is where the idea of overcoming derives from, but I have no real idea, this is just a thought that passed through my mind at one point. I realise we need to account for applying aspects etc. but just putting that aside and recognising that a dexter square is powerful. We only have this with the equal house 10th cusp.

But really I like the equal cusps as they indicate the focus points of any aspect, or aversion, to the ascendant, and as, to an extent, some of the house meanings are derived from that theoretical aspectual relationship to the ascendant I think it's fitting that we should focus on them. But, for me, I also like the idea of recognising the division of time it takes for a planet to rise and set, and for that reason use Placidus as well. By using both I can imagine focus points for aspectual relationships to the ascendant as well as observe the motions of the planets through a pair of planetary hours and how it would seem as if a given planet is whipping through one part of the sky in a given time period, and appears to be moving very slowly through another for the same time period later in the day. (I hope this makes sense as I explain it). So for me using both is very useful to me.

This seems to be the rationale for using unequal quadrants.

Now that we've begun discussing it, do you think it's a fair enough rationale?
In you first post you referred to this as a theoretical "problem". And that the german astrologer you cited believed it to be a mistake in our understanding of ancient texts. Do you still think this, keeping in mind that one of the most natural things for any ancient observer to do would be to observe the rising and setting of planets/stars?

Which implies a direct translation of astronomical observations to the chart. But, um, this is not really what we as astrologers are doing, most of the time.

All of astrology's elements other than the celestial bodies are basically mathematical deductions, plus our chart is a simplification of complex astronomical reality in various ways. The question is then, which abstractions do we prefer?

Right, they're all abstractions, but it is not that astrologers are mixing apples and pears when calculating positions of planets. We need to use these axes in order to measure when a given planet will rise, culminate, and set. We're not comparing apples to pears, just using the correct axes for the job - even if we simplify the positions and are more interested in the positions abstractly.

At the same time, one of my purposes in this thread is to demonstrate that the nowadays widely neglected equal house system, despite or because of its simplicity, has a sound astronomical and philosophical base. It is anything but primitive, outdated or unscientific.

Right, I completely agree. In fact one of the things I've sometimes run into is the notion that equal house systems represents "Kindergarten astrology", or a primitive and, the implication being childlike, use of astrology that must surely result from this. When of course this is not true and we really have no reason why we ought to suggest that the conclusions an astrologer can make from equal are any less valid than those from someone using placidus.

Complexity of calculation does not result in complexity of astrology, nor does a simple calculation result in a simpler astrology.

And yet some people do seem to think so.

In any event nobody calculates placidus cusps by hand, nobody really ever did. They used tables and calculated from those, and today we use computers.

What you mean here is the varying altitude of the zodiac, obviously.

Ack, my bad! Thanks for that, yes of course that's correct.

Paul wrote: Apr 25, 2014 10:39 am

One of the things I like about the equal house system, unique to it, is that the house cusps represent an aspectual relationship to the ascendant. Detouring for a second to Hellenistic astrology we have the idea of planets which are ten signs away hurling its rays in a manner which overcomes the planet to which it casts its ray. And with the nonagesimal we have any planet positioned here doing just that to the ascendant, and so I think of this whole area of the sky as being particularly heightened even if for only this reason, in fact I wondered if it wasn't the other way around and that planets at the equal 10th were clearly the most heightened they could be in the sky and that this is where the idea of overcoming derives from, but I have no real idea, this is just a thought that passed through my mind at one point. I realise we need to account for applying aspects etc. but just putting that aside and recognising that a dexter square is powerful. We only have this with the equal house 10th cusp.

Brilliant astrological thinking here, Paul.

It may interest you that traditional astrologer Rafael Gil Brand in fact gives exactly the same explanation for the dexter square in his ?Lehrbuch der klassischen Astrologie?, p. 240 f. ? He further remarks that a planet at the nonagesimal will be ?elevated? over a planet at the ASC.

But really I like the equal cusps as they indicate the focus points of any aspect, or aversion, to the ascendant, and as, to an extent, some of the house meanings are derived from that theoretical aspectual relationship to the ascendant I think it's fitting that we should focus on them.

This is an interesting view. I would certainly think of zodiacal degrees in aspect to the ascendant as ?sensitized?.

A problem with seeing the equal house cusps primarily as aspects to (or from) the ascendant could be that their orbs extend on either side of the exact degree, so a house cusp should become the same house's centre, really. Also, a 15? orb is wider than any other factor has (except the Sun in classical astrology).

Possibly, though, this is the rationale for the version of the equal house system which is indeed positioning the ASC in the middle of the 1st house.

But, for me, I also like the idea of recognising the division of time it takes for a planet to rise and set, and for that reason use Placidus as well. By using both I can imagine focus points for aspectual relationships to the ascendant as well as observe the motions of the planets through a pair of planetary hours and how it would seem as if a given planet is whipping through one part of the sky in a given time period, and appears to be moving very slowly through another for the same time period later in the day.

This made me wonder - if unequal houses have their rationale in the apparent daily revolution of the Sun (or, by analogy, another celestial body) ? like Placidus in particular implies ? shouldn't the signs have different sizes as well? After all, the Sun doesn't traverse the zodiac at a constant speed either.

Now that we've begun discussing it, do you think it's a fair enough rationale?
In you first post you referred to this as a theoretical "problem". And that the german astrologer you cited believed it to be a mistake in our understanding of ancient texts. Do you still think this, keeping in mind that one of the most natural things for any ancient observer to do would be to observe the rising and setting of planets/stars?

Even though I find the idea that ancient astrologers created the unequal system by misinterpretation of even more ancient texts intriguing, it would take a careful study of the relevant source material to see if this theory holds true.

I don't deny that it does make sense to view the wheel of houses as mirroring the apparent daily course of a celestial body the way i.e. the Placidus system suggests.

This said, unbiased laypersons often note the awkwardness of unequal systems immediately. When showing them their ?unequal? charts, I have heard some of them exclaim: ?Why the [insert your preferred expletive] is my chart so distorted?!!?, and also: ?Are you sure your PC is o.k.??

Of course, I would then confidently refer to most widely accepted astrological lore... But is their spontaneous bewilderment really so unfounded?

Then again, I was using the Koch (GOH) system for quite a long time and generally found it quite descriptive of my clients. Out of curiosity, I'm occasionally experimenting with systems like Campanus and Regiomontanus. So you see, I want to keep an open mind here; I haven't reached any ?final? conclusion yet, but I do like equal houses.

Right, they're all abstractions, but it is not that astrologers are mixing apples and pears when calculating positions of planets. We need to use these axes in order to measure when a given planet will rise, culminate, and set. We're not comparing apples to pears, just using the correct axes for the job - even if we simplify the positions and are more interested in the positions abstractly.

It really depends on where you draw the lines (no pun intended).

If the foundation of your quadrant system is the rising, upper culmination, setting and lower culmination of a celestial body, then the ASC-DSC and the IC-MC axes belong to each other, and your statement is entirely correct.

If you look at this in basic geometrical terms, however, then you are working with two axes that have no (straightforward) relation to each other; that's why I was talking of ?mixing apples and pears?.

In fact one of the things I've sometimes run into is the notion that equal house systems represents "Kindergarten astrology", or a primitive and, the implication being childlike, use of astrology that must surely result from this. When of course this is not true and we really have no reason why we ought to suggest that the conclusions an astrologer can make from equal are any less valid than those from someone using placidus.

Complexity of calculation does not result in complexity of astrology, nor does a simple calculation result in a simpler astrology.

And yet some people do seem to think so.

Very nicely said. In general, I find truth's most shining characteristic to be its mind-boggling simplicity ? once I get there!

Michael

Larxene wrote: Apr 25, 2014 5:11 am

Mertz observation/speculation is interesting. I have two anecdotal evidence for this, as I was using the Equal House system when working with Maternus's delineation material.

Thanks Larxene

Your two cases (including your own) are indeed noteworthy.

Incidentally, I have the MC in the 9th equal house myself, and my own earlier life experiences seem to reflect yours in so many ways.

Never quite came to terms with Rubik's cube, though - I regularly ended up using a screwdriver...

Please excuse me for my ramblings. Tongue Out

Much appreciated. Feel free to "ramble" on!

I am still wondering why the MC and the nonagesimals do not coincide despite both being in the local meridian. However, by observing the stars in Stellarium, I have a hunch as to why that is so. Perhaps it is like this:


If we look above, we see the constellations Taurus, Aries and Pisces (which roughly correspond with the equally sized sidereal zodiac) arranged in a slanted manner. So maybe it's because the zodiac circle is slanted with regard to the Earth, so the nonagesimal occupies a different degree in the zodiac compared to the MC.

This makes me further wonder: why does the MC even stray as far as the 12th sign when in extreme latitudes? I will have to think about it.



The Rubik's cube is difficult to solve without using any algorithms, so even for myself, I have to use algorithms for the last layer.