Paul wrote:

Ruud66 wrote:It is where all parallel circles of declination culminate. This is therefore part of the system of right ascensions and declinations, a frame of reference specifically designed to follow the rotation of the earth.

A couple of things here. I would disagree that if a tools is created to understand X, that therefore X is a byproduct of that tool. I see that as essentially the assumption you're making here. The parallel circles of declination within this reference system are agnostic to the meridian circle. It just happens that for a given observer, the parallel circles will indeed culminate at their merdiian circle, but that is an artefact of a system in which we can see that circle as merely a particular hour circle or 'circle of right ascension' in the first place. But all hour circles in this manner are fixed. So whether we envision it as the celestial sphere rotating or the earth rotating, the meridian is a line fixed in position and pointing to a static direction, but for which this direction may be a 'goal' or a point toward which other thigns move. But it is the other things which are moving.

I'm sorry, but I have some difficulty following you here. I'm not saying that "if a tool is created to understand X, that therefore X is a byproduct of that tool", but I am saying that the way you understand astronomical factors is dependend on your point of view and therefore on your definitions. Therefore I don't see tools, I see points of view and definitions.
The parallel circles of declination are not "agnostic" to the meridian circle as soon as you start talking about "culmination".
Culmination is a phenomenon that can only exist in relation to a local horizon, otherwise it is devoid of meaning. Therefore dropping the word "culmination" in this context implies the idea of semi-arcs and all the rest of it.
Culmination in this context is then one of the bending points in the function of ascension and descension along the parallel circles of declination. Ascension and descension is always in relation to the local horizon.
I agree that all hour circles are fixed and that the meridian is fixed in relation to the horizon, that is one of the most attractive aspects of the placidean system to me. I disagree that this is an artefact of the system.
Just as the term "culmination" is devoid of meaning if it is not in relation to the local horizon, so is the term "parallel circle of declination" devoid of meaning if it is not in relation to the rotation of the Earth.
Therefore some are fixed in one point of view and not in an other and vice versa, same for dynamic. And for the third time: I regret having used these terms, because they are not at the heart of what I'm trying to find out.

Paul wrote:What are your own thoughts on this? It seems clear to me that really we have a problem with house systems in the extreme polar regions irrespective of whether we use a quadrant based house system or not. Whilst there are clearly solutions to those problems, all those solutions make some underlying assumptions about what is important for these house systems.

I'm using the arctic as a kind of Occam's razor. If a system or astronomical point cannot be defined consistently and unambiguously all over the globe, something is wrong.
That something could be our way of viewing things, sloppy definitions that need sharpening, and sometimes it means that things just don't make sense.
If something doesn't make sense in the arctic, then why should it be any good on the rest of the Earth?

I think the nonagesimal is such an example. I don't see a way of describing the idea of the nonagesimal in such a way that it makes sense.
If you say that it should contain the idea of highest point and also that it plays a role in the equal house system, then you run into the problems I outlined in my earlier post. It is not going to work that way.

My opinion is that the nonagesimal as an idea of the highest point doesn't exist. And my opinion is that we're confusing it with the 10th house cusp in the equal house system.
Therefore what has been called the nonagesimal is what I see as the predominant square to the ascendant, denoting the 10th house cusp in the equal house system.

As most of us are aware, the term Midheaven or Medium Coeli (MC) refers to the point where the meridian crosses the zodiac, or the cusp of the 10th house in virtually all unequal house systems. Whereas the Nonagesimal is defined as the point that is 90 degrees away clockwise from the ASC.

In my view, the issue is that with most house systems, the delineation of the axes 1-7 and 4-10 hinges on two sets of points that are derived from two different frames of reference. And then we deduce the remaining cusps based on yet another frame of reference!

For the MC and IC respectively are deduced from the meridian (or the circle that precisely connects North and South) in its intersection with the zodiac, but the ASC and DSC are not deduced from the prime vertical (or the circle that precisely connects East and West) in the intersection of the latter with the zodiac, but as the intersection of the horizon with the zodiac. Apples and oranges, in other words, at least from a geometrical or spatial perspective.

The equal house systems alone are avoiding this problem, usually by using the Nonagesimal in lieu of the MC as the cusp of the 10th. Of course, we could use the MC as our point of departure, and consider whatever degrees lie 90 degrees away from it as our 1st and 7th house cusps - there has indeed an equal system been devised that does just that, but I am not aware of any astrologers actually using it.

Now I can see consistency also in the more widely used ASC - MC - DSC - IC approach, if we look at things in purely temporal terms, i.e., if we choose the rising, culmination, setting, and counter-culmination (is there any better word for it?) of a celestial body as our frame of reference. That approach however seems to make more sense in connection with a house system that is time-based in toto, such as Placidus.

Whereas the rationale of combining the four major points in a celestial body's diurnal revolution with a spatial intersection of the equator (Regiomontanus) or the prime vertical (Campanus) etc. defies my understanding.

But if anybody wishes to share another philosophical view regarding those (or, for that matter, any of the other) systems of house division, hey - be my guest.

Michael

When the sky is clear and the stars are visible, I have a hard time establishing the house cusps and quadrant MC using backyard astronomy. Perhaps it was hard for those whole sign astrologers in antiquity as well. Or perhaps they were led?/misled? by the law of parsimony.

If the zodiac is divided ideally, and whole sign aspects work with those ideal divisions, and lots were alloted to signs, then perhaps the angles too are ideal.

i got a kick out of john Frawley in his book - the real astrology applied... he says something to the effect they were called places, not houses - for a reason... our modern mindset in unable to understand it.. it is the difference between being a nomad and being a prisoner.. he doesn't use the last word, but i can't find the passage in the book where he talks about this... he says some stupid things too,but makes up for it with entertainment value, lol...

Michael Sternbach wrote: In my view, the issue is that with most house systems, the delineation of the axes 1-7 and 4-10 hinges on two sets of points that are derived from two different frames of reference. And then we deduce the remaining cusps based on yet another frame of reference!

For the MC and IC respectively are deduced from the meridian (or the circle that precisely connects North and South) in its intersection with the zodiac, but the ASC and DSC are not deduced from the prime vertical (or the circle that precisely connects East and West) in the intersection of the latter with the zodiac, but as the intersection of the horizon with the zodiac. Apples and oranges, in other words, at least from a geometrical or spatial perspective.

Right, but that's not the perspective the house systems derive from.

Allow me to play devil's advocate with your idea here. You argue that there is an axis or frame of reference for the ascendant and descendant but the frame of reference you choose is a plane/circle - the horizon. And then the MC is the meridian - another plane or circle.

But I think it can be argued that these are focused on calculation and as a result it can appear like the frames of reference are mangled.

But what if instead there is only frame of reference - the ecliptic - and the context for examining it is visibility. Would we consider visibility the frame of reference instead? Perhaps we should. But notice how this takes us away from HOW we calculate it, to WHAT we're calculating.

If I said the only thing I'm interested in is when stars/planets become visible, become their most visible and then become invisible etc. then actually it's not some weird picking and choosing of multiple frames of reference, the necessity to pick the horizon and the MC is borne from the same context or frame of reference - the visibility of that part of the ecliptic.

I think all the house related stuff ultimately derives from that one frame of reference.

regarding my quote from Frawley from yesterday... the word i was looking for was domestic...

it is the difference between being a nomad and being domestic... Frawley suggests we went from a nomadic to a domestic astrology, thus the emphasis on houses, as opposed to places..

james_m wrote:i got a kick out of john Frawley in his book - the real astrology applied... he says something to the effect they were called places, not houses - for a reason... our modern mindset in unable to understand it.. it is the difference between being a nomad and being a prisoner.. he doesn't use the last word, but i can't find the passage in the book where he talks about this... he says some stupid things too,but makes up for it with entertainment value, lol...

james_m wrote:regarding my quote from Frawley from yesterday... the word i was looking for was domestic...

it is the difference between being a nomad and being domestic... Frawley suggests we went from a nomadic to a domestic astrology, thus the emphasis on houses, as opposed to places..

james_m wrote:i got a kick out of john Frawley in his book - the real astrology applied... he says something to the effect they were called places, not houses - for a reason... our modern mindset in unable to understand it.. it is the difference between being a nomad and being a prisoner.. he doesn't use the last word, but i can't find the passage in the book where he talks about this... he says some stupid things too,but makes up for it with entertainment value, lol...

Frawley is great for being quite witty and making things easy to understand.

His great skill though isn't in tracing the history of astrological terminology, so it's probably a good idea to take this with a good pinch of salt.

thanks paul.. i believe you are correct!

it is fun to consider the idea of people, or astrologers going from a nomadic group to a domesticated one in relation to the seriousness given over to 'houses' - something a nomadic group would be less fixated on... but, regardless - i agree with you and he is really just having fun with words - a mercury or gemini type characteristic as i see it..