Hi forum
So this topic is about doing away with the troublesome process of assigning significator to the quesited. In this approach the 7th house is always appointed to the quesited , the 1st to the querent, 10th to the outcome and 4th to the causes underlying the situation.
I cannot remember off hand the name of the astrologer who used this in his practice (sorry for being so sketchy) but I was intrigued by this approach and it made sense to me (at least the bit about assigning the 7th to one and all). Have you read about this or do you have any experience of this in your practice ? I will search for the name of the practiioner who used this approach and get back with it. He has been a classical astrologer as far as I can remember.

Thanks for reading
Kind regards to all

sounds like Gilbert Navarro to me, a student of Ivy Goldstein-Jacobson. personally I don't recommend the approach, as it's not terribly dynamic, and kind of cuts horary off at the knees. that said, if you're going to reduce down to four houses, it has to be the angles, and the way they've been divided up makes sense to me well enough. I just would miss all the extra detail that an approach like this can't allow.

Hello Wade
Sorry for taking long to reply. Thank you for your interest in this thread. Yes I think it was him! And perhaps even Sahl.

This approach by Gilbert Navarro seems simplistic but I was thinking if it can be more accurate. The most difficult part about any horary is to identify the correct significators and with the significators fixed I suppose the chances of going wrong should come down drastically.

But yes, the whole.fun of it seems gone! With no details to look for, nothing much to add colour to the story....

Thanks for your much valued opinion

Best regards

I don't know about the astrologers mentioned and their methods. I normally use 7th for all as the general other(except in cases where I know exactly which house the significator is). May not be the best approach but it has worked for me so far.