Skyscript Astrology Forum

Curtis Manwaring wrote:

Schmidt published an article on the houses several years ago in the Mountain Astrologer which explained the logic of how house meanings were derived and in that article both motions were used to derive house meanings (sorry I don't remember which issue but it was around 2007 or 2008).

Issue #88, December 1999/January 2000: "The Facets of Fate: The Rationale Underlying the Hellenistic System of Houses"

Time passes fast. It seems like I studied that article only yesterday. I kept that issue of TMA. Robert Schmidt didn't know it then, but in retrospect that general period seems to have been the peak productive years of his work with Hellenistic astrology. In recent years there has been only silence. Definitions and Foundations was published in 2009.

Therese Hamilton wrote:Curtis Manwaring wrote:

Schmidt published an article on the houses several years ago in the Mountain Astrologer which explained the logic of how house meanings were derived and in that article both motions were used to derive house meanings (sorry I don't remember which issue but it was around 2007 or 2008).

Issue #88, December 1999/January 2000: "The Facets of Fate: The Rationale Underlying the Hellenistic System of Houses"

Time passes fast. It seems like I studied that article only yesterday. I kept that issue of TMA. Robert Schmidt didn't know it then, but in retrospect that general period seems to have been the peak productive years of his work with Hellenistic astrology. In recent years there has been only silence. Definitions and Foundations was published in 2009.

Thanks. A lot longer than I thought it was.

Zoidsoft wrote:

Schmidt published an article on the houses several years ago in the Mountain Astrologer which explained the logic of how house meanings were derived and in that article both motions were used to derive house meanings (sorry I don't remember which issue but it was around 2007 or 2008).

Therese Hamiton wrote:

Issue #88, December 1999/January 2000: "The Facets of Fate: The Rationale Underlying the Hellenistic System of Houses"

Thanks Therese. I have a scanned copy of the article so I will take another look.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

Time passes fast. It seems like I studied that article only yesterday. I kept that issue of TMA. Robert Schmidt didn't know it then, but in retrospect that general period seems to have been the peak productive years of his work with Hellenistic astrology. In recent years there has been only silence. Definitions and Foundations was published in 2009.

Yes its rather sad reflecting back that Definitions and Foundations was meant to be the first in a whole new series of translations of the entire hellenistic astrological corpus. Like many I became a subscriber eagerly awaiting further works. But instead as you state there has been complete silence from Robert Schmidt.

GR wrote

It's from the Timaeus I think

.

Zoidsoft wrote:

Yes. Where the Demiurge constructs the 4 elements, the khora, etc..

Thanks to both of you on that.

I guess my point was that if you are posting on an open astrological forum like this where most people are not specialists on hellenistic astrology and/or Robert Schmidt's translations it helps to also use terms that most people understand alongside such terminology. Otherwise your comments can appear opaque and esoteric to general readers.

Mark

Zoidsoft wrote:

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.

I dont personally think it is necessarily an issue of ''splitting hairs'' to discuss which system of dynamical houses is used. They can lead to different results.

For example, I looked at a day chart yesterday where the Sun fell in the 11th by whole sign. It was also in the 11th by Porphyry and Alcabitius. However, in Placidus and Regiomontanus it fell into the 12th. You suggested you gave more weight to a dynamical system to determine whether a potential predominator was 'fit for business'. So in the example I cited the Sun could be judged effective or ineffective depending on the dynamical system one used.

Mark

Mark wrote:I dont personally think it is necessarily an issue of ''splitting hairs'' to discuss which system of dynamical houses is used. They can lead to different results.

If you're thinking that say the 12th house cusp is at 11 Ge 21 and Venus is at 10 Ge 49 then it's in the 11th but if it's at 11 Ge 38 it's in the 12th then yes that is a different result, but I view dynamical divisions differently. Most people doing the above are really thinking topically and not just about strength (in the situation above though before PH, I would have considered both to be in the 12th because Venus was so close to the cusp - in those days I was using Koch houses). I don't use dynamical divisions that way anymore.

I view dynamical divisions as somewhat of a continuum where the degrees to the right of the MC begin dropping off gradually in tension until roughly 20 degrees it has become fully "slack" and then gradually begins to pick up tension as it goes toward the next angle.

Hello Curtis. Could you explain me better please? I was already aware about what you mentioned because you already talked about it in another thread sometimes ago. Something about an update of Delphic Oracle if I'm not wrong.

zoidsoft wrote:
I view dynamical divisions as somewhat of a continuum where the degrees to the right of the MC begin dropping off gradually in tension until roughly 20 degrees it has become fully "slack" and then gradually begins to pick up tension as it goes toward the next angle.

For some coincidence a week ago I stumbled upon Any Winehouse's chart. She has Jupiter in its domicile in Sagittarius but in the very, very, cadent 6th house.

I would tend to consider it ineffective. Let's say better that I'm a little confused because this Jupiter is in the 7th house by WSH, but cadent by division.

this is the chart:

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Winehouse,_Amy

In other words, the dynamical "tri-sections" of the angles have a strength component because of one of the meanings of the word "kentron" which means to goad or prod to action. This kind of division is about how motivated a planet is to act. Partly planets that are cadent in this way are ineffective because the primary motion "deflects" that planet away from the angle it is closest to. However if that planet happens to also be in the whole sign angle, then it's actions (or requests to the oikodektor) may be picked up by the domicile or exaltation lord and made manifest. It however would have trouble manifesting on its own. It makes special sense (imo) to consider trigon lords, predomination and the chart rulers (Oikodespotes and co-oikodespotes) in this way because they have a role that involves domination and strength. And when it comes to topics, some topics can be either slack (unnoticible) or tense (highly visible), but the cadency of the place does not change the nature of the topic; it still has the same collection of significations.

It's really hard for me to understand why so many astrologers prefer to use the WHS which is against astronomical phenomena, reason and philosophy. In the sky planets movements as seen from earth are composed by two basic movements: the movements along the zodiac which is the movement in the sign direction, the movement of the Others and the movement or rotation around the earth, of raising and setting which is the movement of the primum mobile, the movement of the Same. The first movement is established by the Sun and therefore by changes in solar lighting during the annual revolution which is divided in twelves parts starting from the vernal equinox. The second movement is established by the movement of the primum mobile (i.e. the apparent motion of the celestial sphere caused by earth rotation) which is divided into twelve unequal hours starting from the horoscope. The division of the ecliptic is composed by twelve equal part, the signs of the zodiac, because the equinox and solstice axis divide the annual circle in four equal quarter and each quarter is divided in the equal part which correspond to the beginning of season, the maximum of season and the decline of season. The twelve divisions of the daily planetary trajectories during the day and night are unequal because the duration of day and of night are not equal during the year except at equinoxes. A planet rising at the eastern horizon must be in conjunction with the horoscope for definition of horoscope since it is rising with the same portion of the ecliptic named after that sign. A planet culminating must be aligned with the celestial meridian corresponding the the south, the local meridian. If we use the WHS we miss completely the real astronomical meaning of the houses: because a planet in the X house it's approaching the culmination, it's maximum highness in the sky but if we use the WHS a planet can be in the X house and decline from its culmination. If we use the WHS we miss completely the philosophical foundation of astrology and celestial movement: the movement of planets and luminaries along the ecliptic is independent from the movement of the planet around the earth by rotation so the movement of other is independent from the movement of the same. Therefore the two movement must be measured according to their own nature. The division is still based on the same principal of equal division in twelve parts but the movements are different and they are made in different times. The zodiac sign of thirty equal degrees are division of the planetary motions along the ecliptic and the house of thirty equinoctial degree, which correspond to different ecliptic or zodiacal degree can not be equivalent.

margherita wrote:
For some coincidence a week ago I stumbled upon Any Winehouse's chart. She has Jupiter in its domicile in Sagittarius but in the very, very, cadent 6th house.

I would tend to consider it ineffective. Let's say better that I'm a little confused because this Jupiter is in the 7th house by WSH, but cadent by division.

this is the chart:

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Winehouse,_Amy

I cannot explain the jargon of Robert Schmidt but in Amy's chart if we use WSH then what of Luna in Capricorn? Is that eighth house? Then look at at the nodal axis. I seem to recall Ben Dykes stating that his older sources would use WSH or quadrant depending on whatever looked more interesting so perhaps we could be more pragmatic in these matters rather than expecting authorities to share our own obsessive exactitudes

florentinus wrote:It's really hard for me to understand why so many astrologers prefer to use the WHS which is against astronomical phenomena, reason and philosophy...

Paulo Mendez,

You posted the same statement on FB. What are you trying to accomplish here? This forum especially has a much higher standard for scholarship and should not be used to bash a particular idea. It is far too premature to guess what really works in so called "reality".

Hello florentinus,

It's really hard for me to understand why so many astrologers prefer to use the WHS which is against astronomical phenomena, reason and philosophy.

WSH works! (at least through my own empirical observation of events). It is not against astronomical phenomenon (i.e. it doen't contradict) rather, it is an example of contradistinction. It is not against philosophy as it is at least aligned with Platonic principles of forms in the world of being (WSH) and the world of becoming (dynamic house systems). It is not against reason as it is philosophically brought out via rationale mode!

... The second movement is established by the movement of the primum mobile (i.e. the apparent motion of the celestial sphere caused by earth rotation) which is divided into twelve unequal hours starting from the horoscope.

It shouldn't be said this way! The ancient astrologers esp. the greeks, love symmetry. What you see as being unequal is the exact opposite to them. They see it as equal! The apparent motion of the celestial sphere results in the rising and setting of the celestial bodies. The rising and setting of the most important celestial body (the sun) results in the day and night. Hence, they divided the length of the day / night into 12 EQUAL space of time that we observe as unequals because we use a different clock!

The division of the ecliptic is composed by twelve equal part, the signs of the zodiac,

This is correct - EQUAL...!

BUT the following

because the equinox and solstice axis divide the annual circle in four equal quarter and each quarter is divided in the equal part which correspond to the beginning of season, the maximum of season and the decline of season.

... is wrong. The philosophy of EQUALLY dividing the passage of the of the sun (ecliptic into 12 EQUAL signs) is not because there are equal quarters. Astronomically and from observations, the length of the seasons are NOT equal. So, you see that through observations, lengths of the seasons are unequal (just like dynamic house system) but we define them as equal through reasoning (like WSH!!!!).

...A planet rising at the eastern horizon must be in conjunction with the horoscope for definition of horoscope since it is rising with the same portion of the ecliptic named after that sign.

You said "a planet". This is NOT true!. A planet rising at the eastern horizon will only be in conjunction with the horoscope (by definition is on the ecliptic) if the planet is exactly on the ecliptic! - like the sun!

Thus your arguments below about the culmination are also not... - you know where I am going with this...

The zodiac sign of thirty equal degrees are division of the planetary motions along the ecliptic and the house of thirty equinoctial degree, which correspond to different ecliptic or zodiacal degree can not be equivalent.

They are divided equally and made equivalent through the rationale of Platonic philosophy.

Zoidsoft, i'm not Paulo Mendez. I don't know why he posted my reply on facebook as it was his comment, but clearly i'm not him.