Skyscript Astrology Forum

I understand you use W sign house because it explains the Gauguelin data...

However,it doesn`t explain why those degrees in 12th quadrant house appear to be more powerfull than the powerful AC degree.

Why would a planet at 4? Leo be more powerful than at an AC of 20 ? leo,as the Gauguelin hot points show?

And things aren`t so simple at the MC. Often the MC planet is in the 9th or 11th sign or 12th ,not at the Ng sign

Someone said once,the MC in 9th house is strong because that`s where the Sun has its joy,but the same person fails to mention that the MC often falls in the weak/evil 8th,6th or 12th houseswhere theoretically the planet will be weak

We tend to have selective memories regarding our favourite system.

Well you mentioned that on a few occasions,like in the above link,but forgot to mention it doesn`t apply to the MC.Hence the remark about selective memory.

As for planets in 9th being strong because they trine the AC and the Sun is ,anyway,in joy there(the hottest time of day) it was mentioned in this forum on a few occasions ,but would have to look again for the threads. It`s not from ancient books.

I `ve finished reading "night and day" by Rob Hand.Very accurate readings he makes using a modern approach to ancient interpretations, but in this particular book he uses quadrant houses.On a few others he opts for WS.

I found it difficult to believe in such a simple system and at that point in my career tended not to use houses at all following the houseless system of Reinhold Ebertin, also known as Cosmobiology. A few years later I began using Placidus houses, more or less the default option of the time, but then after attending a workshop by the late Edith Wangemann, I switched over to the Koch or Birthplace House System. However, in this whole period I noticed that the angular and cadent houses worked more or less but that the succedent houses did not work as well. These are the houses most affected by the differences among the house systems.

I turn now to the 90's and the beginnings of the research into Hellenistic astrology. When we began to examine the Greek text of Ptolemy, we found abundant evidence that he did in fact use the signs as houses in the same manner as the Hindu astrologers. The passages that have been cited as evidence of his use of other house systems all appear to have been misinterpretations. The evidence for this is skillfully laid out by Chris Brennan. You can find the article at the following URL

http://www.hellenisticastrology.com/201 ... gn-houses/

His views on Sect and triplicity explain more than I expected in many charts that I know,including mine. In fact,it made me wonder if I need houses at all,other than the angles

astrocorreia wrote:Yes,some of them appear to have used diferent systems together .
However the idea that the MC is only a point seems fallacious.
Valens`description of MC is similar to 10th house,so, to say,like Rob Hand,that quadrant was used only to assess strenght seems like jumping to conclusions.

Thanks for your comment

Mark wrote:

Well you mentioned that on a few occasions,like in the above link,but forgot to mention it doesn`t apply to the MC.Hence the remark about selective memory.

Yes I noted Gauguelin's research and said it was interesting. End of story. I noted it because I found planets in the WSH 1st quadrant/equal 12th are often prominent. But my views were based on delineating charts not devotion to the research of Gauguelin.

As for planets in 9th being strong because they trine the AC and the Sun is ,anyway,in joy there(the hottest time of day) it was mentioned in this forum on a few occasions ,but would have to look again for the threads. It`s not from ancient books.

I was talking about your comment about the MC Anyway we are wandering far from the topic. Again....

I `ve finished reading "night and day" by Rob Hand.Very accurate readings he makes using a modern approach to ancient interpretations, but in this particular book he uses quadrant houses.On a few others he opts for WS.

Hand has used various house systems in his astrological career. But he is a leading advocate of whole sign houses for topics today. I think he was comparing to Koch to WSH in his book.

This is from Robert Hand's Facebook comments on whole sign houses. He mentions first encountering them in a talk by the Indian astrologer B.V. Raman in the early 1970s.

I found it difficult to believe in such a simple system and at that point in my career tended not to use houses at all following the houseless system of Reinhold Ebertin, also known as Cosmobiology. A few years later I began using Placidus houses, more or less the default option of the time, but then after attending a workshop by the late Edith Wangemann, I switched over to the Koch or Birthplace House System. However, in this whole period I noticed that the angular and cadent houses worked more or less but that the succedent houses did not work as well. These are the houses most affected by the differences among the house systems.

I turn now to the 90's and the beginnings of the research into Hellenistic astrology. When we began to examine the Greek text of Ptolemy, we found abundant evidence that he did in fact use the signs as houses in the same manner as the Hindu astrologers. The passages that have been cited as evidence of his use of other house systems all appear to have been misinterpretations. The evidence for this is skillfully laid out by Chris Brennan. You can find the article at the following URL

http://www.hellenisticastrology.com/201 ... gn-houses/

His views on Sect and triplicity explain more than I expected in many charts that I know,including mine. In fact,it made me wonder if I need houses at all,other than the angles

That is not what Hand himself suggests.

Mark

There are 2 motions, the motion of the Same, and the motion of the Other.

We see in the words chosen for the 3 house types (angular, succeedent, cadent): apoclima, epanaphora, kentron the activity of the motion of the sky.

Because the house "system" of the ancient world was based upon these two motions, which "system" one uses depends upon which framework you're dealing with. In terms of topics, Schmidt has said that whole sign is used. When it comes to issues of eminence or the "universal hermetic techniques" I think one should also consider the motion of the Same. This is because a domicile lord has a chance to rectify a "deflected" testimony from another planet, but when using universal hermetic techniques, it is not just a matter of whether a planet is in a place conducive to business (chrematistikos as Valens puts it), but whether a planet in its potential (or universal state) has the motion of the Other considered as well. So planets used in this "wholistic" way should consider the "dynamical" divisions as Schmidt puts it because when planets act as advocates for the winds it is important which side of a kentron a planet is on. So in the case of trigon lords I believe it most important to consider both the position of a planet in regards to the angular degrees as well as whether it is upon a place "conducive to business". So please don't think it is just a matter of "which house system is the correct one". It is a matter of using the composite concepts in a cooperative manner.

Mark wrote:Zoidsoft wrote:

There are 2 motions, the motion of the Same, and the motion of the Other.

Hello Curtis,

I take it this is Robert Schmidt's way to rephrase what the rest of the astrological community calls primary and secondary motion?

Yes.

Zoidsoft wrote:

We see in the words chosen for the 3 house types (angular, succeedent, cadent): apoclima, epanaphora, kentron the activity of the motion of the sky.

So have I understood you correctly that you are stating these terms evolved to reflect primary motion or what Schmidt calls ''the motion of the same''?

Yes.

Zoisoft wrote:

Because the house "system" of the ancient world was based upon these two motions, which "system" one uses depends upon which framework you're dealing with. In terms of topics, Schmidt has said that whole sign is used. When it comes to issues of eminence or the "universal hermetic techniques" I think one should also consider the motion of the Same. This is because a domicile lord has a chance to rectify a "deflected" testimony from another planet, but when using universal hermetic techniques, it is not just a matter of whether a planet is in a place conducive to business (chrematistikos as Valens puts it), but whether a planet in its potential (or universal state) has the motion of the Other considered as well. So planets used in this "wholistic" way should consider the "dynamical" divisions as Schmidt puts it because when planets act as advocates for the winds it is important which side of a kentron a planet is on. So in the case of trigon lords I believe it most important to consider both the position of a planet in regards to the angular degrees as well as whether it is upon a place "conducive to business". So please don't think it is just a matter of "which house system is the correct one". It is a matter of using the composite concepts in a cooperative manner.

Thanks for that clarification. I think you have mentioned triplicity lords for eminence consideration. What other practical chart considerations would you utilise dynamical houses for? For example, would you do this in examining whether the sect light is the predominator or exclusively rely on whole sign houses? It would certainly seem useful to give additional testimony on a planets power to act beyond just its whole sign placement.

Yes. I think the predomination issue seems especially appropriate to consider the actual degrees and relationship the lights have to the angles to the point that I feel it is more important than which whole sign a light is in, but I still use whole signs in this consideration.

Also what 'dynamical' system do you utilise yourself? Porphyry obviously has history on its side. On the other hand we have systems like Alcabitius and Placidus that seem to better encapsulate the ascensional rising times of the signs.

Because there are typically 3 divisions for an average of 90 degrees, I feel like the particular systems are splitting hairs to a large extent when dealing with the two primary motions. The important issue is whether a planet is being brought toward an angle or deflected away from the angle and in regards to this issue it is probably good enough to use whole signs while keeping in mind the degrees of the angles. So if a planet is in the 11th whole sign, it is being brought toward an angle and likely even the case if in the 11th dynamical division. When a planet is in the 9th, it is being deflected away... but when a planet is in a kentron, typically one side is being brought to an angle while half the sign will be deflected away. So in the case of the kentron a planet sufficiently far enough to the right of the midheaven will begin to act like the 9th house (cadent) even if in the whole sign 10th. Schmidt would say the topic is still of a 10th nature, but that its motivation is slack (that of relative cadency).

Mark wrote:Zoidsoft wrote:

There are 2 motions, the motion of the Same, and the motion of the Other.

I take it this is Robert Schmidt's way to rephrase what the rest of the astrological community calls primary and secondary motion?

So have I understood you correctly that you are stating these terms evolved to reflect primary motion or what Schmidt calls ''the motion of the same''?

Yes.

Mark wrote:Mark wrote:

So have I understood you correctly that you are stating these terms evolved to reflect primary motion or what Schmidt calls ''the motion of the same''?

Zoidsoft wrote:

Yes.

In that case since angularity and cadency derive from the motion of the same ie primary motion is there much logic in referring the whole sign houses in this way? As these reflect the motion of the other ie secondary motion shouldn't considerations of strength/weakness based on angularity be restricted to dynamical division which better reflects this? Or is there a case for retaining such terms like angular/succedent/cadent for whole sign houses too?

Mark

GR wrote:

Mark wrote:Zoidsoft wrote:

There are 2 motions, the motion of the Same, and the motion of the Other.

I take it this is Robert Schmidt's way to rephrase what the rest of the astrological community calls primary and secondary motion?

It's from the Timaeus I think.

Mark wrote:In that case since angularity and cadency derive from the motion of the same ie primary motion is there much logic in referring the whole sign houses in this way? As these reflect the motion of the other ie secondary motion shouldn't considerations of strength/weakness based on angularity be restricted to dynamical division which better reflects this? Or is there a case for retaining such terms like angular/succedent/cadent for whole sign houses too?