37
Thanks both to you Margherita and Martin.

In Margherita's article Ptolemy is quoted about not to work in "accordance to the usual systems". I know Martin once explained this but I don't remember well. Were the 'usual systems' based on the arithmetical method of calculating the rising times of signs (as in my example a few posts ago) or on Antiochus method of mundane aspects?

38
Eddy wrote:Thanks both to you Margherita and Martin.

In Margherita's article Ptolemy is quoted about not to work in "accordance to the usual systems". I know Martin once explained this but I don't remember well. Were the 'usual systems' based on the arithmetical method of calculating the rising times of signs (as in my example a few posts ago) or on Antiochus method of mundane aspects?
I believe the method of ascensional times, you explained above.

margherita
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com

39
margherita wrote:
Eddy wrote:Thanks both to you Margherita and Martin.

In Margherita's article Ptolemy is quoted about not to work in "accordance to the usual systems". I know Martin once explained this but I don't remember well. Were the 'usual systems' based on the arithmetical method of calculating the rising times of signs (as in my example a few posts ago) or on Antiochus method of mundane aspects?
I believe the method of ascensional times, you explained above.

margherita
Yes, directing only by rising times or oblique ascension.

41
Martin Gansten wrote: As you mention my name: my point is that there is a logical inconsistency either way, because it seems obvious (to me, anyway) that aspectual relationships are only one part of the matter, and that some major house significations are based on things like culmination and anti-culmination (and approaching or falling away from culmination, etc). The 10th place wouldn't be invested with certain powers if it were not for the fact that it was supposed to be culminating, and so forth.

Yes, sorry, I understood your original point and didn't mean to hijack it for my own purposes. I just mentioned your name since you had already alluded to the relationship between the houses and the ascendant earlier in the thread.

On that topic though, you made an important observation earlier that ancient authors tended to work in an idealist mindset, so that while they may have known that the actual point of culmination is not always in the the 10th whole sign house, they would still tend to adopt the idealized whole sign position anyways due to this mindset. Wouldn't the logical inconsistency you mentioned be rendered not as inconsistent from an ancient perspective if this was the mindset that (some) early astrologers adopted? Obviously that doesn't really help us much when it comes to having this debate amongst practitioners today, but as far as understanding how it was conceptualized during the early part of the tradition, it seems to explain how angularity could have been understood in a purely whole sign framework.
My website:
http://www.chrisbrennanastrologer.com

43
Many issues in astrology can be considered as 'idealisations', whether in ancient or contemporary astrology: the signs as idealisations of the lunar months, the degrees as idealisations of the days. The division of the four elements. The planets as rulers over certain sectors in the ecliptic, etc...

44
Thanks, everyone, for such an informative thread!

Just to tackle authors one at a time, though.... what happens if we start thinking "orthogonally" (as Ed F put it) and come to the house problem with a fresh pair of eyes?

I recently read Tetrabiblos cover-to-cover, and was amazed at how little Ptolemy uses houses at all. So to say that he used whole signs (or for that matter, some other) houses really seems to be a stretch to me.

He names only five houses, and seems to draw them in collaterally, in a discussion of another topic.

So if we ask why Mr. Pt says so little about houses, I think the answer is because topical houses (sensu Schmidt) do not fit into Ptolemy's larger project of systematizing astrology according to his basic foundational principles.

In Tetrabiblos, entities are hot, cold, moist, or dry. They refer to solstices and equinoxes. They might be angular, or affected by principles of nature. Once we recognize Ptolemy's basic "elements of astrology" framework, it is hard to see how topical houses would flow directly from them, other than the 10th and the 1st--and then these are angular, anyway.

In fact, you could do 98% (or thereabouts) of Ptolemy's astrology with no reference to topical houses at all.

So why should we assume that this synthesizer, systematizer, and explicator must have meant something that he chose not to say?

45
Eddy wrote:Many issues in astrology can be considered as 'idealisations', whether in ancient or contemporary astrology: the signs as idealisations of the lunar months, the degrees as idealisations of the days. The division of the four elements. The planets as rulers over certain sectors in the ecliptic, etc...
Yes, and we know your personal preference for the geometrically ideal when assessing alternatives. No harm, just a bias to be recognized in ourselves like so many others we may have.

- Ed

48
Eddy wrote:At least I?m glad that nobody here ever asked for my natal data to find an explanation why I disagree with them.
At least you have the ancients to back your predilection! :lol:

- Ed