Mike,

Just wanted to say that I found your article one of the clearest expositions of the issues. The Plantiko presentation is pretty good as well, but it's been a while since I looked at it, and I think I did disagree on a few points.

Your insistence on keeping the "mundo" perspective at the center of any consideration of quadrant systems is to me a key point. The ecliptic intersects of the mundo divisions are secondary - just sensitive points on the ecliptic, and not the basis for assigning points to houses. Unfortunately the ecliptic-centrism of modern astrology leads to a lot of noise when considering domification that sheds little light.

I use the method described at http://www.levante.org which is given as an alternate mathematical description of the fundamental model underlying Placidus and Topocentric. (And yes, I'm quite aware of the fudging the latter system does when crossing the +/- arctic circles). Like all formulations, there are compromises at the limits of the mathematical functions used for the description. I find the limits chosen in this case to be acceptable. I have no major problem with the 6-fold division you (and Dieter) espouse either.

I'd be curious as to your thoughts on the content of that link (after bypassing the revisionist history in the first chapter).

- Ed

Ed,

Thank you very much for your support.

Your link to LevantE was dead and although I found the site, I wasn?t able to figure out the article to which you refer. Can you specify, please?

Meanwhile, I do question a site that poses as a serious contender but then itself takes seriously and posts the original SPICA piece on Topocentrism: -

?Hey - we drew these house lines - honest - and they weren?t great circles, either - now have the topo pole - it gives you precisely those great circles.? (Excuse me!!?) That was Tony Page?s initial position, followed up by his ?upon the cone? versus ?upon the sphere? obfuscations, yet there it is, still on display at LevantE.

I have no major problem with the 6-fold division you (and Dieter) espouse either.

I don?t know what you mean by this.

Mike

Mike W wrote:Ed,

Thank you very much for your support.

Your link to LevantE was dead and although I found the site, I wasn?t able to figure out the article to which you refer. Can you specify, please?

Sorry about that. Try this more specific link: http://www.levante.org/svarogich/en/pri ... ntent.html

Meanwhile, I do question a site that poses as a serious contender but then itself takes seriously and posts the original SPICA piece on Topocentrism

The author is critical of the Topocentric system as well. He put the material up there because it's difficult to find.

?Hey - we drew these house lines - honest - and they weren?t great circles, either - now have the topo pole - it gives you precisely those great circles.? (Excuse me!!?) That was Tony Page?s initial position, followed up by his ?upon the cone? versus ?upon the sphere? obfuscations, yet there it is, still on display at LevantE.

I think it was rather a testament to the whole Placidus approach that they managed to come up with their somewhat wacko linear geometry model, supposedly based on empirical findings. No real astrologer would have gone to that kind of geometry to describe a house system. But of course their tone was fanatical, as were many of their claims, and some of the math really smells bad. Still, they were trying to describe and formulate the same underlying model of ascension that we share.

I have no major problem with the 6-fold division you (and Dieter) espouse either.

I don?t know what you mean by this.

Mike

Sorry again for the lack of clarity: I meant the use of only the "upper" 6 houses for planets that do not set, and vice-versa. That is, sticking with a strictly semi-arc based definition of the domification. S's formulation is based on great circles with moving orientation relative to each other, but that's just a specialization of his larger scoped model of astrological frames of reference. That latter part is what I find it particularly interesting: the derivation of the house system is just one example of his overall model.

- Ed

Ed,

Thanks for that. I downloaded the lot but given its wordiness, please forgive me if I leave it ?til the series is out of the way.

Yeh - I jumped to the conclusion that Svarogich had taken Polich seriously because the page is there with no health warning or other obvious flag. Wikipedia also links to that SPICA page, as though it was a definitive explanation.

With regard to Topo?s maths: As it happens I know exactly how and why Topo houses came into existence. In a plot-line more accident prone than, but worthy of, the Naked Gun series, they were a direct descendant of a makeshift version of Placidus. Polich, through wilful self-delusion, was unaware of this.

I think it was rather a testament to the whole Placidus approach that they managed to come up with their somewhat wacko linear geometry model, supposedly based on empirical findings. No real astrologer would have gone to that kind of geometry to describe a house system.

IF you?re referring to the spurious empirical graphic shown in SPICA, actually it wasn?t so whacko. Unaware that it had been done before, I came up with exactly the same type of 2D maps. And that?s how I explained house divisions to myself.

If, on the other hand, you?re referring to Page?s technical bluster after the event, in the words of my old friend Neil, who corresponded with him: ?The trouble was, they had the topocentric pole but got their balls caught ?round it..? and thus span out of control.

As for Topo, it runs its houselines through the Equator at exactly the same angle as its Placidian counterparts and at exactly the same equatorial points. Topo?s then run off in a straight line while the Placidians curve slightly away. Polich thought that Placidus really did use poles and, unaware of the authentic version, was in fact failing to re-invent it. All that talk about a topocentre was just wishful thinking.

I have no major problem with the 6-fold division you (and Dieter) espouse either.

With regard to Dieter, this is news to me. The last time we spoke, he ?hated? the 6-house ?lid? as an ugly add-on (whereas I consider it an elegantly obvious extrapolation of first principles). He programmed the thing but didn?t like it. Maybe I should get back in touch with him.

Thanks for the "behind the scenes" on the Topocentric stuff.

As far as Dieter goes, I do not pretend to speak for him. I probably inferred incorrectly that he espoused the 6 house polar approach because I saw its description in the sweph manual, or something.

Ed

I've now been in touch with Dieter and confirmed his opinion remains, for now, as discussed. This may however be subject to change.

m

Mike,

Thanks for checking. Read the second article in your series last week. Really good. Looking forward to the rest.

- Ed

Mike,

Thank you for the detailed reply. I have since read the second part of your polar horoscope article. Glad that you have decided to republish the series here.

With respect to the issue of domification, the problems only arise due to our attempt to project houses onto the ecliptic. Houses do exist quite independently of this circle as you also note.

Overall, I think there can be two possible answers to the question, 'which is the correct method of domification':

1. All (or most or many) methods have some merit, and they all provide information from a different perspective. This is the view represented by, for example, Emma Belle Donath.

2. Only one method is correct, all others are "figments of the imagination". My understanding is that this is the view of most practicing astrologers, now or ever.

I'm quite open to #1 on the basis of symbolism, and Donath does a good job of expounding this view in her short book. From a purely mathematical standpoint, however, I would vote for Regiomontanus if #2 turned out to be true. The reason is that Regio is the only 'rational' way to divide mundane space into houses (and I may be at odds here with your view of Placido as the 'natural' division).

I agree that examining how various domification methods work in the polar regions is a good way of discovering their properties. This examination will not, however, provide the final answer. It is always good to look at the behaviour of our models at the extremes because this will lead to new insights. This is what Einstein did when he came up with the theory of relativity (i.e. a model for the extremely large), and what Heisenberg et al did for quantum mechanics (i.e. a model for the extremely small). Despite these robust theories, which both contradict classical physics (Newtonian mechanics) at the extremes, the latter has a wide-ranging validity in our everyday lives. And the unification of these three theories hasn't happened despite concerted efforts for many decades now of practically the entire physics community, which is an immensely larger collective force than what astrologers represent in terms of research. What I'm saying is that, just because a domification method fails at the polar region, this doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't have merit under regular circumstances. But the study of the polar region is useful at the same time for it will lead us to a better understanding of domification.

I'd like to come back to one specific section in the second part of your article, namely, the second objection you raise about Regiomontanus towards the end. You say:

As we move away from the Equator, Regiomontanus divides the celestial sphere into increasingly unequal areas, with the 3rd, 4th, 9th, and 10th houses growing in size as the other eight steadily diminish... [This] must be of serious concern as the issue raised is not confined to the Polar Regions. If the equal division of celestial space (or at least the fair chance of a planet tenanting any house) is considered important, then it must be understood that the modus rationalis favoured by Regiomontanus yields neither.

What I'm wondering about is where the requirements of "equal division of celestial space" or "the fair chance of a planet tenanting any house" are coming from. If we go back to first principles, I don't see any such requirement arising. I would appreciate if you could take the time to expand on these ideas a little more.

Many thanks again for being available to us for clarifications. I look forward to your reply.

Hi Peter,

You claim that Regio is the only rational method of domification, but you didn't support the claim with your reasoning. Could you?

Thanks,

- Ed

Hi Ed,

The system known as Regiomontanus (popularized by Johann Muller of Konigsberg but probably originating from the 11th century or before) divides the sky along the equator. Since houses are a direct result of the Earth's rotation, dividing the equator equally is the only 'rational' way to proceed. It is really confounding why the majority of modern astrologers cling to the Placidian division (again, only popularized by Placidus and not invented by him) when this is equivalent to using planetary hours, a classical technique.

For a discussion of the various domification methods, Deb's material is an excellent reference:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/temples/Chapter8.pdf

Hello Peter,

I have some questions and wild assertions

The system known as Regiomontanus (popularized by Johann Muller of Konigsberg but probably originating from the 11th century or before)

That's the first I've heard of the 11th century origination! What's the source on that?

Since houses are a direct result of the Earth's rotation, dividing the equator equally is the only 'rational' way to proceed.

This is an assertion. It doesn't explain why Hellenistic era astrologers just simply used whole sign houses (along with some use of Porphry that I don't quite understand), and why Arabic and medieval era astrologers used both Alchabitius (the semiarc or the declination method, there seems to be an issue as to which and why) and whole signs.

In my opinion, I'd have to class the Regiomontanus system with the rest of the 'reformations' of astrology that occured in the Renaissance period: attempts to purify and clean up what they saw as a flawed system, when in fact it was their understanding and source materials that were flawed. Regio is, though, an impressive exposition of that period's mathematics, coming from one of its great scientists.

It is really confounding why the majority of modern astrologers cling to the Placidian division

This is because Placidius was the only one available by the 19th century forefathers of modern astrology. It wasn't challenged until moderns realized there were more house systems.

For a discussion of the various domification methods, Deb's material is an excellent reference:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/temples/Chapter8.pdf

Yes, Deb is great. We can all agree on that.

Hi Gabe,

That's the first I've heard of the 11th century origination! What's the source on that?

Actually, Deb's chapter I just cited above. Mike also alludes to this in his first article on polar houses.

This is an assertion. It doesn't explain why Hellenistic era astrologers just simply used whole sign houses (along with some use of Porphry that I don't quite understand), and why Arabic and medieval era astrologers used both Alchabitius (the semiarc or the declination method, there seems to be an issue as to which and why) and whole signs.

Correct. And I had no intention of explaining these. They have no relation to why I think Regiomontanus is the only rational system.

This is because Placidius was the only one available by the 19th century forefathers of modern astrology. It wasn't challenged until moderns realized there were more house systems.

Right but how long ago was that? I think the real answer is that most astrologers don't examine this question, and just simply accept that that's the way things are. They start working with Placidus and it seems to work for them. Which doesn't say anything quantifiable about the efficacy of Placidus or any other system of domification. What is needed is a series of objective, quantifiable studies on how well the various systems do on real data.

Yes, Deb is great. We can all agree on that.

No arguments there!

Another great article on the technical bases of house division is this by Christopher Weidner:

http://www.astro.com/astrology/cw_astro_houses_e.htm

The one to read if you ever wanted to get your head around to understanding the various circles and motions. And when you're there, you may want to look around because Astrodienst is another wonderful resource.