Hi all,

the latest study compares eleven different house systems by using
statistical methods and 10 quite big sample groups. There's circular
diagrams that show which houses are emphasized with different samples (politicians, musicians, actors, etc.).

Looking at the recent discussions on Skyscript about astrology and science on the other hand, and about house systems inspired by the articles by Michael Wackford on the other hand, this study might offer a comment on both those subjects.

http://koti.welho.com/jmetsovu/index.html

What an interesting and well presented study! It gives us so much to think about...

I immediately noticed the 7th house peaks for politicians, and wondered if this reflected a need to engage in battle or fill their lives with ?opponent? situations. To consider this further, the next thing I looked for, was whether there was a study group of soldiers or athletes, but you didn?t cover those. I think it is good to feature soldiers or athletes because they are such a definite personality type, but I suppose you have to draw the line somewhere.

One comment that struck me as curious though ? it is where you write of Regiomontanus:

William Lilly, the famous horary astrologer from the 17th century swithced [sic] to this house system from Alcabitius that had been the prevalent quadrant system from times immemorial. Today this method is used especially among horary astrologers.

Where did you get the information that Lilly switched from Alcabitius to Regiomontanus? (It's not true; Lilly published in Regiomontanus from the start). I?m also very doubtful about the claim that Alcabitius was ?the prevalent quadrant system from times immemorial?, but would have to do a lot of research on who did what and where to know what you should be saying.

It doesn?t make sense to suggest that Lilly caused a change - he simply adopted the system that was known to be the most credible of his day, and for which tables were readily available. A look at Lilly?s sources shows that the German astrologers of the Wittenberg region (Schoener, Regiomontanus, and their predecessors) were the major influence upon Lilly and most of his European contemporaries. I suppose the responsibility for popularising Regiomontanus really ought to go to Regiomontanus

A unique study. I have two observations to make:

[1] Selection bias and lack of definition.

Teachers: of what? Literature or calculus?

Instrumentalists: with what? Electric guitar or pianoforte?

That is, physicality or mentality? (Like artists: representationalists or abstractionists?)

Gay men: "Then the Sun must be an antithesis to all this rough, strictly heterosexual manliness." False assumption. There are many homosexual men who are course and tough (and who work in prisons and in the navy) and many heterosexual men who like playfulness, sensitivity, lightness, beauty, etc.

[2] Interpretation.

If, for the sake of argument, one assumes that the semi-arc system is indeed (astronomically and astro-philosophically) the "correct" house system, then might not one assume that since it gives the astrologer the "correct" representation, it is up to the astrologer to provide the correct interpretation? In other words, the picture provided by Placidus is the correct picture, but the way we interpret the picture leaves much to be desired. This goes back to definitions and assumptions.

Deb wrote:One comment that struck me as curious though ? it is where you write of Regiomontanus:

Where did you get the information that Lilly switched from Alcabitius to Regiomontanus? (It's not true; Lilly published in Regiomontanus from the start).

I've just heard it somewhere. Bad references, that's true. Thanks for the correction, I changed the text in the site.

For Andrew:

The selection bias and lack of definition are mainly due to the nature of AstroDatabank. I used filters they have, and ?instrumentalists? means any kind of instrumentalists, from rock music to classical. I would personally have preferred separating popular musicians from the classical ones, but that would require picking them by hand. It?s the same with teachers.

About gay men: it?s true that I have used heavy stereotypes. We all know that we cannot put real people into such boxes. What I?m searching for is the archetype of the Sun. What does it mean that gay men have the Sun a bit more often angular than averagely? What does it mean that they have a prominent 5th house a bit more often than usual? What does it tell us about being a gay ? what does it tell us about astrological symbolism?

I?ve made some suggestions, but here the very nature of astrology itself enters the picture, the interpretation, the symbolic thinking, creativity, imagination? traditionally astrology as a form of divination belongs to the 9th house, that is, to the 1-5-9 triangle. We have some statistical observations, but that?s not all there is; then we must make the interpretation, to find the symbolic coherence.

In astrology, the Sun and Saturn are antithesis to each other in many ways, the Sun is about privileges and aristocracy, Saturn in turn is about hard work, grief and difficulties, but Saturn is also about deep thought and grave, experience-based wisdom, so does that make the Sun to be about lightness and even superficiality? Why do we get the statistical results we get? Why were the Gauquelin sectors located in the cadent houses? Why was the Jupiter profile of the Gauquelins so different from the traditional descriptions of Jupiter as the planet of modesty and prudence? Were the Gauquelins actually having charts with weak Jupiter, not strong? Statistical research might at its best give answers to that kind of questions, and then we could use that interpretation in real astrological readings.

Thank you both for the feedback.

I don't wish to disparage your work: I think it's important and may prove significant.

I think of astrology as a symbolic system with an astronomical basis. A scientific approach to traditional astrology (I use scientia in the sense of structured knowledge) will incorporate rational and philosophical ideas to determine the practical and theoretical integrity of any model. I think Mike Wackford has accomplished this in his articles on the semi-arc system: he has taken a scientific (rather than a statistical) approach to solve what the late Jim Tester called "the difficult and vexed topic of house division." I'm surprised this has not been the subject of greater discussion, but it seems that unless someone else can come up with arguments to counter his, it is pointless to try to prove by statistical methods the validity of one system of house division over another, since not only does the lack of differentiated data introduce an element of subjectivity that mitigates against any conclusive result, but the apparent unassailability of his argument renders the use of any method other than the semi-arc system completely moot.

For example, Tamise Van Pelt, Ph.D., a professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, wrote a book a few years ago called Birth Pattern Psychology (on personality typing from ancient astrology through modern psychology). My one criticism of this book at the time was that the author relied exclusively on the semi-arc system to measure her data, whereas a different system of house division would have produced a widely variant distribution of planets, thus skewing the results and undermining the veracity of her findings.

If, however, Mr. Wackford is correct in his assessment of the semi-arc system, i.e., that it alone is the one system that deserves credit, then his work has indirectly contributed toward the validation of her work. From my perspective, such an approach truly embodies the proper application of the scientific method to a system of divination which cannot be qualified from a purely statistical analysis, but which is nonetheless susceptible to scientific inquiry as this pertains to its material basis (i.e., the astronomical component of house division).

These are just some thoughts. As I wrote above, I don't wish to disparage your work, but I do think that one must first determine the suitability of the tool one is using to measure one's results before one attempts to measure them. If there is indeed only one house system that truly deserves credit (astronomically as well as philosophically), then one ought to use that system and to impute any disappointments or unmet expectations to one's own comprehension (or lack of it) rather than to any perceived representational inadequacies of the semi-arc system (as if it were in competition with other [discredited] house systems).

Andrew wrote:...
If, however, Mr. Wackford is correct in his assessment of the semi-arc system, i.e., that it alone is the one system that deserves credit, then his work has indirectly contributed toward the validation of her work. From my perspective, such an approach truly embodies the proper application of the scientific method to a system of divination which cannot be qualified from a purely statistical analysis, but which is nonetheless susceptible to scientific inquiry as this pertains to its material basis (i.e., the astronomical component of house division)...

I think the situation is a bit more complicated than this. Mike has proposed a coherent mathematical model of the physical phenomena of ascension. But, the astrological relevance is open to further inquiry.

From the perspective of modelling the physical, observed phenomena, we can question how well the proposed model works. Personally, I think it works exceptionally well.

But then the question becomes one of whether and to what extent it's astrologically relevant. For Hellenistic astrology, it would only be relevant to the methods that used dynamic division (usually Porphyry) and to Ptolemy's primary directions. Its usefulness for other astrologies could be assessed in any number of ways, depending on the prejudices of the practitioner regarding specific competing systems, or regarding the relevance of accurate astronomical models to astrology. So, a standpoint of requiring statistical evidence is certainly valid from some perspectives.

My point is that we're looking at two or more levels of validation here. The first, accurate description of ascension, is passed easily and as far as I'm concerned, this model trumps all other quadrant systems.

The second is one of the relevance of quadrant systems vs something like whole signs in astrological practice. This second level of validation is not so clear-cut.

(Note that I use it for primaries and other event related methods myself).

Where did you get the information that Lilly switched from Alcabitius to Regiomontanus? (It's not true; Lilly published in Regiomontanus from the start).

I read that somewhere, too. I'll have to look. Lilly may have published only using Regiomontanus, but he may not have been taught that system from the beginning. I'll do some digging.

Tom

The second is one of the relevance of quadrant systems vs something like whole signs in astrological practice. This second level of validation is not so clear-cut.

Is a mathematical error also an astrological error?

I recently had a conversation with a practitioner of the Huber Method of Astrological Psychology. The Huber Method uses the Koch system of house division (even in extreme latitudes). One of the arguments advanced by this individual is that only the Koch system of house division satisfies the medieval astrologer Johannes Sch?ner's requirement that the common referent for the position of signs and planets (the ecliptic) should also be used to determine the position of houses.

This particular Huberite (Huberian?) informs me that Koch house cusps are defined only as points on the ecliptic; that is, they have no extension in space, such that one cannot really know in which Koch house a point off the ecliptic falls. Koch does not divide the sky, but only the ecliptic, thus Koch houses cannot be used for primary directions. They can, however, be used for symbolic directions, such as solar arcs.

Koch is a variation of the Alcabitius system (Koch was invented by Specht and Zanziger but made popular by Walter Koch in 1962). Both Koch and Alcabitius employ the principle of trisection of the semi-diurnal arcs by a time division. The Koch houses are created by trisecting the MC semi-arcs and Alcabitius houses by dividing the diurnal circle of the ascendant.

In his "Principia of Polyzodiacal Astrology," Svarogich notes:

Among the house systems that have appeared in the 20th century, only three have a real geometry: Topocentric, Koch and that of local space ... If the systems of Koch and of local space as 12-fold divisions of the ecliptic are really effective, they are still not house systems in the traditional medieval sense.

Not a house system of one kind, but a house system of another kind, perhaps?

Svarogich's intention with that somewhat clumsily translated section was to point out that the "medieval" meaning of "quadrant house system" was domification: accurate description of the ascensional properties of points on the celestial sphere. As Mike Wackford has done in his series of articles. So, yes, I believe that a mathematically inaccurate model or formulation does detract from astrological relevance.

As far as I remember, Rumen Kolev did not find a "coherent" concept of mundo position to be possible for Koch. So I'm not quite sure what S was meaning by saying the Koch has a real underlying geometry.

- Ed

I can't disagree that it's an interesting and well presented study.
More interesting for me would have it been if you had included 8 folded houses systems. I suggest that you would have got more than 4,8 with the Gauquelin sectors, and probably far more with octotopos-Dominion. See http://cura.free.fr/11domi2e.html
(Although I know that this one can't be easily found in popular programs).

Patrice

On a recent post ( 19-Jun-2008) on the German Astrologix forum, it can be found some ten other Houses Systems to be tested. See http://www.astrologix.de/cgi-bin/forum/ ... ID9&omm=17

by chronological order :

etwa 1000 v.Chr. H?usersystem: Hermes Trismegistos
160 v. Chr. das H?usersystem des Antigonos
1.Jh. H?usersystem, die "?quale" Manier des Petosiris.
2.Jh. Erstes H?usersystem: ein elementares H?usersystem
232 ? 304 H?usersystem von Porphyrius
4. Jh. H?usersystem des Theon
um 950 H?usersystem des Alcabitius
Um 1040 H?usersystem des Albohazen Haly
1233 ? 1296 Italien, Giovanni Campanus entwickelt ein in?quales H?usersystem.
1436 ? 1476 H?usersystem des Regiomontanus
1603 Italien, Perugia, H?usersystem, P. Placidus de Titis
1661 Holland, Den Haag, H?usersystem, Jean Baptiste Morin
um 1900 H?usersystem nach Zariel (Cope), "die Manier der ?Axialen Rotation".
1907 H?usersystem, A.E. Thierens, L. Knegt, Th. J.J. Ram AC-Parallel-Circle-System
1920 H?usersystem, Rudolf von Sebottendorf
18.4.1921 H?usersystem des Alfred Max Grimm
1929-1955: H?usersystem:, Johannes Vehlow Das 'antike H?usersystem'.
1950 H?usersystem, die "Nat?rliche Graduierung" nach Evans
1961 H?usersystem der "Topozentrischen H?user", Polish & Page
8.8.1964 H?usersystem von Koch: Zanzinger und Specht
Dezember 1999 H?usersystem, Patrice Guinard, das "Dominion" ? System

For a next study ?

Patrice

patrice_guinard wrote:More interesting for me would have it been if you had included 8 folded houses systems. I suggest that you would have got more than 4,8 with the Gauquelin sectors, and probably far more with octotopos-Dominion.

Dear Patrice Guinard,

thank you for your feedback. It's all about software restrictions, if Jigsaw included Octotopos, I would surely test it.

One thing that perplexes me right now is the so called "five degree rule" or offsets. No one of the softwares I know includes the possibility to calculate planets near the cusps to the next house as is the usual practice of many astrologers. Then there is a bit more radical option, the so called "Sripati" method, where the cusps of the houses are considered as the high points, not as the beginning points, and the houses are actually located on both sides of the cusps so that the border is in the middle of two cusps. Many softwares contain the "Porphyry version" of this house system (Sripati or Hindu Bhava houses), but other cuspal systems could be considered in this way too.