Hello Mark,

Re: "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."

Okay, in light of that, let me change my answer. My answer to which house system would I like to see used for posted charts is "whichever one gives the tightest aspects to relevant house cusps at events across whole event lists." This seems much more wordy than just saying Topocentric...but, so be it.

Re: "Although judging by Equal's lack of popularity here maybe I should have left Topocentric up!"

In light of this and the Mystery Chart B fiasco...let's just say you had a bad week and leave it at that. (meant in humor)

Re: "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."

Actually, Topocentric presented in isolation would not be my preferred method. It will look much, much better if it is compared to other systems. Try an experiment... take one photo of yourself standing alone and then take a picture of yourself surrounded by Peewee Herman, Nick Nolte, Lyle Lovett, and Steve Buscemi. You will definitely look better in the 2nd picture... Topocentric will look better surrounded by Placidus, Koch, Porphyry, Alcabitius, Regiomontanus, and Equal.

Re: "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."

By showing it's functionality in actual astrological analysis through example, not by hanging on philosophical issues that quite frankly fall to the ground like a soiled hanky in a peep show booth by comparison. In other (less picturesque) words, most of the arguments have centered on the particular author's problem with the math or the reasoning... and NEVER with the actual utilization of the Topocentric House system. I have read much on this topic and it still comes across like Newtonian physics adherents rejection of Einstein's relativistic model based on their theories, rather than what is empirically observable.

In (still) other words...if others want to compare house systems and discuss the mathematics of the demonstrable astrology, I am all for it. If it's a chance for some Makransky-type to discuss why it can't work while the whole time never looking at the examples of it working flawlessly, then there is admittedly no interest as it serves no true purpose other than obfuscation and ego-building.

Want to compare some astrological examples with real astrology? I am all for it and would support it as best I can. Additionally, I think it could be important for SOME who would at the least be exposed to some other ideas...whether they later adopt them or not.

Besides, that comparison thread could be a centralized container for my radical annoyances and perceived arrogance, easily skipped over by those who don't care one way or another. ...and for those who have a pet system that they really would rather not read while their system is put under such mathematical scrutiny.

Can we spend a moment to discuss just HOW this could come about? ie. some ground rules that we can all (basically) agree with in general, even if not specifically

Take care

James

Regardless seems to me Mystery Charts ought to be posted in Whole and Placidus since these seem to be the divisions of choice amongst the Traddy and Moddy characters who either post here now or might do so in the future.

change my vote from whole sign to equal.. i wanted a 50/50 combo plate but it wasn't an option.. i mentioned all this in my first comment, but alas people look more closely at the poll results and forget to consider the nuances to all this..

Good evening,

A complexity of choice of a topical place system or systems apparently not yet discussed in this thread is the location of the focal or 'strongest' degree of each such place, often called "cusp" and assumed to be at the beginning.

There are, however, other options, ex. gr.:

1. focal point at the middle of the place, supported by the argument that each 'house' begins, increases, culminates and subsides in strength; one such system is called 'Vehlow' in central Europe but was and is also used by some Indian astrologers;

2. focal point at the degree of the Ascendant in 'whole sign houses' rather than at the beginning of each sign; this focal point coincides with the beginning of an 'equal house';

3. focal point at the beginning of each house but these beginnings set off by some degrees before the degree of the Ascendant, for example the so-called 'classical' house system, the logic of which might be enhanced by determining the set-off in right ascension.

It has surprised me that more than 60 % of replies here indicate whole sign houses. This might not be representative for astrologers worldwide.

Best regards,

lihin

Hello lihin,

Re: "A complexity of choice of a topical place system or systems apparently not yet discussed in this thread is the location of the focal or 'strongest' degree of each such place, often called "cusp" and assumed to be at the beginning."

Good point. I think the strongest point in the house is the cusp (otherwise it wouldn't be so obviously responsive to direction and progression to just minutes of arc), but don't think that that point is the beginning of the house.

James

As the thread has clearly evolved beyond my original focus ie getting feedback on the preferred house systems to display for Mystery charts I thought I might as well engage on some of the points raised here.

Atlantean wrote:

I think the strongest point in the house is the cusp (otherwise it wouldn't be so obviously responsive to direction and progression to just minutes of arc), but don't think that that point is the beginning of the house.

I agree with that but I suspect our reasons are somewhat different. Would you mind setting out your explanation for the above statement?


Mark wrote:

Re: "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."

Atlantean wrote:

By showing it's functionality in actual astrological analysis through example, not by hanging on philosophical issues that quite frankly fall to the ground like a soiled hanky in a peep show booth by comparison. In other (less picturesque) words, most of the arguments have centered on the particular author's problem with the math or the reasoning... and NEVER with the actual utilization of the Topocentric House system. I have read much on this topic and it still comes across like Newtonian physics adherents rejection of Einstein's relativistic model based on their theories, rather than what is empirically observable.

Want to compare some astrological examples with real astrology? I am all for it and would support it as best I can. Additionally, I think it could be important for SOME who would at the least be exposed to some other ideas...whether they later adopt them or not.

Lots of astrologers think that a practical demonstration of their technique is proof that their system works beyond others. I dont think that necessarily 'proves' much definitively except that astrologers generally have conviction in the techniques they regularly work with. The fact that one approach can produce results doesn't exclude the possibility of totally different techniques working too.

Atlantean wrote:

In (still) other words...if others want to compare house systems and discuss the mathematics of the demonstrable astrology, I am all for it.

I am certainly no mathematician. The very idea would generate hilarity amongst anyone that knows me.

However, I have noticed that a high proportion of mathematically inclined astrologers seem to have a strong objection to the Topocentric house system in a way you dont find being raised against other systems based on semi-arcs such as Placidus, Alcabitius or Koch. Why is this?

Here is an article by Michael Wackford challenging the mathematical soundness of Topocentric houses (which he contrasts unfavorably to Placidus semi-arcs)

http://skyscript.co.uk/pdf/TopocentricHouses.pdf

Wackford along with other astrologers like Cyril Fagan, Robert Hand, Neil Gillings, and Jose Lebron seem to feel the mathematical foundation of this house system is flawed.

I should say I am not taking sides in this debate. I lack the mathematical credentials to do so. However, I thought other members might find this interesting.

Mark

Mark wrote: However, I thought other members might find this interesting.

Mhmm, you're correct. I've been in that Topo pdf before. I would have to understand how to calculate them at some point to be-all-that-I-can-be. However, geometric instructions on simpler house systems have almost invariable been incorrect leaving me to figure them out myself. And step by step instructions cause me to glaze over.

Topocentric houses would be appear to be unique in that the lines aren't going to converge on a point.

It looks like I havn't read all of it. This part catches my eye.

quote from pdf:

It is at any rate clear that the transformation from cone to sphere(2) cannot be made with great circles; but if these were to be deployed, the anomalies of the present system can only be removed by closing the mesh to a single point on the sphere. This is possible, of course, but to do so - whilst retaining Topo?s 30 degree divisions of the equator - presents us with something else we already have: house division according to Regiomontanus.

I'm kind of curious about the Whole sign people as well. A system which moves every planet I have into the next house! (insert protest here) It might be worth knowing if they are using siderial or tropical signs. Square charts or Circles.

Ariondys wrote:

Mark wrote: However, I thought other members might find this interesting.

Mhmm, you're correct. I've been in that Topo pdf before. I would have to understand how to calculate them at some point to be-all-that-I-can-be. However, geometric instructions on simpler house systems have almost invariable been incorrect leaving me to figure them out myself. And step by step instructions cause me to glaze over. Topocentric houses would be appear to be unique in that the lines aren't going to converge on a point. It looks like I havn't read all of it. This part catches my eye. quote from pdf:

It is at any rate clear that the transformation from cone to sphere(2) cannot be made with great circles; but if these were to be deployed, the anomalies of the present system can only be removed by closing the mesh to a single point on the sphere. This is possible, of course, but to do so - whilst retaining Topo?s 30 degree divisions of the equator - presents us with something else we already have: house division according to Regiomontanus.

I'm kind of curious about the Whole sign people as well. A system which moves every planet I have into the next house! (insert protest here) It might be worth knowing if they are using siderial or tropical signs. Square charts or Circles.

You are a good case study then. Do you find your house planets more accurate using one house system rather than others? Why?

http://www.metastudies.com/store/articl ... nita-burns

Cosmobiologists often prefer the Koch system because they believe that house cusps on the ecliptic are too sensitive to ecliptic transits, directions and progressions.

Well, I thought I wanted to say something about this before but the thread hadn't degenerated (inevitably) into a discussion about house systems.

My observations are my own, so when I read this I perked up. I can go, oh, that agrees with me, or I can question the veracity of this.

I havn't kept track of which cusps or how many times. But I would say in general my Koch cusps are sensitive to transits.

I think since the Sun doesn't retrograde or have latitude that it is the ideal transit to contemplate for intermediate house cusps. To the point of highliting the meanings of the house.

Slower planets are probably more reliable on the "hit-rate" where something comes to mind that actually happened, rather than a meaningless day the Sun happened cross your cusp.

If I go back 28 years... tNE=4th; I suspect this is when my family lived in a camper while our next house was under construction. Probably worth verifying this era to be a good case study. [edit: nope this memory is too early Mom said Jan 1980]

If I go back 14 years... tNE=5th; a year of going to raves. This coincides with going to the gym and eating healthy(I put on 10 pound of muscle -- the only time I ever gained weight) And that could possibly be solar arc Jupiter=6th equal house. And in the following couple years, highest paying work I've had. solar arc Jupiter on either side of my Koch 6th.

and now tNE=6th. Not much perspective yet. Strange ideas about nutrition and hygeine and whatever else? Can't be good, and I'm sure it isn't. I have no stamina left.

Certain different house system might have different connotations. Bodily vs Career?

I think everyone should be familiar with this:
http://www.uranian-institute.org/bfwitte.htm

Alfred Witte was a professional surveyor/engineer and astrologer/astronomer credited with formulating an astrological methodology forming the basis of what are today called "Uranian Astrology" and "Cosmobiology". Witte sought to test and sort out assumptions of classical astrology, and thus his early writings include techniques which he eventually discarded. An example of the astrological fundamentalism that Alfred Witte confronted in the early 20th century was the centuries-long trend of working with house systems simultaneously putting the Ascendant at the first-house cusp and the Meridian at the 10th. Witte noted in an article in the Astrologische Rundschau in the 1920s that the Ascendant and Medium Coeli measure two different dimensions and should not be combined as house cusps in a single system, and that event Ptolemy had already spoken of separate houses for the Ascendant, and houses for the Meridian (1975 p250). Fundamentalist astrologers nonetheless continued to turn a deaf ear to his statement until recent years. Witte later recommended that houses be dispensed with (1975, p 255), noting that effective use of midpoints often yields similar, but more precise information.

Hello Mark,

Re: Cusp being the strongest point in a House and yet, not the beginning of the house and Mark's comment, "I agree with that but I suspect our reasons are somewhat different. Would you mind setting out your explanation for the above statement?"

Surely... since it is the (Topocentric) cusp that is responsive to Primary Directions and Secondary Progressions to within just minutes of arc, AND since Primary Directions (and most Secondary Progressions) mature in under 0? 12' of arc, it establishes that cuspal point as the "power point" of that house. As for the cusp not being the very beginning of the house, this is easily observable and has been commented on by numerous astrologers. Additionally, many astrology programs have a (software) switch that will adjust the printouts to show the correct house (as in the following example) The cusp cannot be the beginning of a house, because a Saturn that sits at 5? Libra when the 8th House (Topo) cusp is at 7? Libra is an 8th House Saturn.

Re: "Lots of astrologers think that a practical demonstration of their technique is proof that their system works beyond others."

Not quite. What I am saying is, if we have a very, very accurate birth chart, that the Topocentric House system will give the tightest (overall, accumulative, how ever you want to say it) aspects of relevant planets to relevant cusps at major events (across the entire events list) than the other systems. As I am interested in the comparison between the systems, then any intensive study of the various systems would (by definition) be an indicator that it works better than the others. ie. this is a mathematical point, not a subjective one...

Re: "The fact that one approach can produce results doesn't exclude the possibility of totally different techniques working too."

We're talking about house systems and the precision of where each of them places the cusps. A house system, cusp placement, is a measurement. If I give you a bar that is one meter long and we have 10 people measure it...the person coming closest to one meter is the "rightest" measurement. 99 cm would be a pretty good measurement, but not as good as 100 cm. 99 cm might be "usable" but that doesn't mean that 99 cm is completely accurate. Same with the houses...

Re: "I am certainly no mathematician. The very idea would generate hilarity amongst anyone that knows me."

I also am not a mathematician. That being said, I did have the highest score (Junior Engineering Technical Society) in mathematics in the state of Illinois and the 2nd highest score in the entire United States. (this paid for my college education)

Re: "However, I have noticed that a high proportion of mathematically inclined astrologers seem to have a strong objection to the Topocentric house system in a way you dont find being raised against other systems based on semi-arcs such as Placidus, Alcabitius or Koch. Why is this?"

Because they are hanging on the (perceived) philosophical principles and their understanding of the math rather than on actual analysis of tightly-timed charts and the relevant aspects. ie. ivory tower never trumps real world observation

Re: "Here is an article by Michael Wackford challenging the mathematical soundness of Topocentric houses (which he contrasts unfavorably to Placidus semi-arcs)"

I am already aware of Wackford (as is Isaac Starkman) and his opinion. He is looking at the math (from HIS perspective) and he is not looking at what is being done and what is observable as a result of that math. Picture any of the many people who thought powered flight was an impossibility and tried to back that up with (their understanding of) physics to prove it. Standing at Kitty Hawk in December 1903 and watching the plane fly over pretty much refutes any preconceived notions. The problem with theories vs. reality (as an observational stance) is that two years of constant calculations and reasoning can be trumped by two minutes of real-world observation.

Re: "Wackford along with other astrologers like Cyril Fagan, Robert Hand, Neil Gillings, and Jose Lebron seem to feel the mathematical foundation of this house system is flawed."

If instead of looking at the math, they instead had looked at Primary Directions and Secondary Progressions in real-life examples on tightly timed charts, then they would be of a different opinion. Cyril Fagan was a siderealist. Robert Hand worked in the tropical. They can't even agree among themselves on that, yet we are to take their agreement on Topocentric House "problems" as infallible? Additionally, it is funny to see (the great) Cyril Fagan's name in the list, since Fagan used and promoted Alexander Marr's rectification of Fagan's birthtime and Marr's usage of Topocentric Houses was necessary for the rectification!

Look at some actual examples...compare. As you said, you are no mathematician...so doesn't it make much more sense to look at real-world examples and compare orbs (simple math) than to argue from philosophical and abstract mathematical principles which seems to be what Wackford, etc. are doing?

Re: "I should say I am not taking sides in this debate."

I didn't really have a side. I was using Placidus. I observed some of Isaac's postings. I went and researched the astrology (especially as regards tightness of aspects in Primary Directions and Secondary Progressions) and Topocentric gave the tightest orbs of all of the house systems that I tested. As it was demonstrably proficient, I adopted Topocentric. Had Placidus shown tighter aspects, I'd still be using Placidus.
Take care

James

Atlantean wrote: We're talking about house systems and the precision of where each of them places the cusps. A house system, cusp placement, is a measurement. If I give you a bar that is one meter long and we have 10 people measure it...the person coming closest to one meter is the "rightest" measurement. 99 cm would be a pretty good measurement, but not as good as 100 cm. 99 cm might be "usable" but that doesn't mean that 99 cm is completely accurate. Same with the houses...

james do you think the idea of the division of the circle into 12 houses is a philosophical decision, or one based on something more tangible, like the making of a bar in a metal shop?

Atlantean wrote: ivory tower never trumps real world observation

james, do you think your observations are more valid then others observations?

Atlantean wrote: The problem with theories vs. reality (as an observational stance) is that two years of constant calculations and reasoning can be trumped by two minutes of real-world observation.

is the idea of '12 houses' a theory or a reality?

Atlantean wrote: Look at some actual examples...compare. As you said, you are no mathematician...so doesn't it make much more sense to look at real-world examples and compare orbs (simple math) than to argue from philosophical and abstract mathematical principles which seems to be what Wackford, etc. are doing?
James

james does astrology have any philosophical or abstract principle, or is astrology all very tangible like a physical object where you'd be able to 'measure' it in a fully objective way?

james_m wrote:
james does astrology have any philosophical or abstract principle, or is astrology all very tangible like a physical object where you'd be able to 'measure' it in a fully objective way?

i would like to clarify myself here.

more specifically - do you think house systems have any philosophical or abstract principle, or are house systems all quite tangible in a concrete manner as you appear to suggest here?