skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Whole sign house system problems it poses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 945
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 4:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

astrocorreia wrote:
Yes,some of them appear to have used diferent systems together .
However the idea that the MC is only a point seems fallacious.
Valens`description of MC is similar to 10th house,so, to say,like Rob Hand,that quadrant was used only to assess strenght seems like jumping to conclusions.

Thanks for your comment


Not sure if you're replying to me or not, but the MC isn't always referred to as just a point. One of the words used for the midheaven was "praxis". It appears that Valens used the MC to point to a sign as having the collection of meanings often associated with the 10th house, but remember that Valens is already 300+ years removed from the founding period.

By Valens time they were already mixing topics and what Schmidt calls dynamic "strength" divisions. It depends upon what era you're talking about because trisections of the angles were indeed used topically, but the language makes it clear that the issues cannot be boiled down to just one system. The need to do this is very much similar to a physicists need for a single "law" of everything. But because house logic is by nature a "composite" paradigm, attempts to reduce it to a single "system" will fail. Once you understand how the logic of the motions applies to the meanings you seek, you will understand which to look at.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
astrocorreia



Joined: 29 Mar 2015
Posts: 87

Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
Quote:
Well you mentioned that on a few occasions,like in the above link,but forgot to mention it doesn`t apply to the MC.Hence the remark about selective memory.


Yes I noted Gauguelin's research and said it was interesting. End of story. I noted it because I found planets in the WSH 1st quadrant/equal 12th are often prominent. But my views were based on delineating charts not devotion to the research of Gauguelin.

Quote:
As for planets in 9th being strong because they trine the AC and the Sun is ,anyway,in joy there(the hottest time of day) it was mentioned in this forum on a few occasions ,but would have to look again for the threads. It`s not from ancient books.


I was talking about your comment about the MC Anyway we are wandering far from the topic. Again....

Quote:
I `ve finished reading "night and day" by Rob Hand.Very accurate readings he makes using a modern approach to ancient interpretations, but in this particular book he uses quadrant houses.On a few others he opts for WS.


Hand has used various house systems in his astrological career. But he is a leading advocate of whole sign houses for topics today. I think he was comparing to Koch to WSH in his book.

This is from Robert Hand's Facebook comments on whole sign houses. He mentions first encountering them in a talk by the Indian astrologer B.V. Raman in the early 1970s.

Quote:
I found it difficult to believe in such a simple system and at that point in my career tended not to use houses at all following the houseless system of Reinhold Ebertin, also known as Cosmobiology. A few years later I began using Placidus houses, more or less the default option of the time, but then after attending a workshop by the late Edith Wangemann, I switched over to the Koch or Birthplace House System. However, in this whole period I noticed that the angular and cadent houses worked more or less but that the succedent houses did not work as well. These are the houses most affected by the differences among the house systems.

I turn now to the 90's and the beginnings of the research into Hellenistic astrology. When we began to examine the Greek text of Ptolemy, we found abundant evidence that he did in fact use the signs as houses in the same manner as the Hindu astrologers. The passages that have been cited as evidence of his use of other house systems all appear to have been misinterpretations. The evidence for this is skillfully laid out by Chris Brennan. You can find the article at the following URL

http://www.hellenisticastrology.com/2011/12/08/did-ptolemy-use-whole-sign-houses/


Quote:
His views on Sect and triplicity explain more than I expected in many charts that I know,including mine. In fact,it made me wonder if I need houses at all,other than the angles


That is not what Hand himself suggests.

Mark


Who said he does?

He didnt completely switched to whole sign.And last time I heard of him he wasn`t sure wsh was the first house system used by the greeks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4960
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zoidsoft wrote:
Quote:
There are 2 motions, the motion of the Same, and the motion of the Other.


Hello Curtis,

I take it this is Robert Schmidt's way to rephrase what the rest of the astrological community calls primary and secondary motion?

Zoidsoft wrote:
Quote:
We see in the words chosen for the 3 house types (angular, succeedent, cadent): apoclima, epanaphora, kentron the activity of the motion of the sky.


So have I understood you correctly that you are stating these terms evolved to reflect primary motion or what Schmidt calls ''the motion of the same''?

Zoisoft wrote:
Quote:
Because the house "system" of the ancient world was based upon these two motions, which "system" one uses depends upon which framework you're dealing with. In terms of topics, Schmidt has said that whole sign is used. When it comes to issues of eminence or the "universal hermetic techniques" I think one should also consider the motion of the Same. This is because a domicile lord has a chance to rectify a "deflected" testimony from another planet, but when using universal hermetic techniques, it is not just a matter of whether a planet is in a place conducive to business (chrematistikos as Valens puts it), but whether a planet in its potential (or universal state) has the motion of the Other considered as well. So planets used in this "wholistic" way should consider the "dynamical" divisions as Schmidt puts it because when planets act as advocates for the winds it is important which side of a kentron a planet is on. So in the case of trigon lords I believe it most important to consider both the position of a planet in regards to the angular degrees as well as whether it is upon a place "conducive to business". So please don't think it is just a matter of "which house system is the correct one". It is a matter of using the composite concepts in a cooperative manner.


Thanks for that clarification. I think you have mentioned triplicity lords for eminence consideration. What other practical chart considerations would you utilise dynamical houses for? For example, would you do this in examining whether the sect light is the predominator or exclusively rely on whole sign houses? It would certainly seem useful to give additional testimony on a planets power to act beyond just its whole sign placement.

Also what 'dynamical' system do you utilise yourself? Porphyry obviously has history on its side. On the other hand we have systems like Alcabitius and Placidus that seem to better encapsulate the ascensional rising times of the signs.

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 945
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
Zoidsoft wrote:
Quote:
There are 2 motions, the motion of the Same, and the motion of the Other.


Hello Curtis,

I take it this is Robert Schmidt's way to rephrase what the rest of the astrological community calls primary and secondary motion?

Yes.

Zoidsoft wrote:
Quote:
We see in the words chosen for the 3 house types (angular, succeedent, cadent): apoclima, epanaphora, kentron the activity of the motion of the sky.


So have I understood you correctly that you are stating these terms evolved to reflect primary motion or what Schmidt calls ''the motion of the same''?

Yes.

Zoisoft wrote:
Quote:
Because the house "system" of the ancient world was based upon these two motions, which "system" one uses depends upon which framework you're dealing with. In terms of topics, Schmidt has said that whole sign is used. When it comes to issues of eminence or the "universal hermetic techniques" I think one should also consider the motion of the Same. This is because a domicile lord has a chance to rectify a "deflected" testimony from another planet, but when using universal hermetic techniques, it is not just a matter of whether a planet is in a place conducive to business (chrematistikos as Valens puts it), but whether a planet in its potential (or universal state) has the motion of the Other considered as well. So planets used in this "wholistic" way should consider the "dynamical" divisions as Schmidt puts it because when planets act as advocates for the winds it is important which side of a kentron a planet is on. So in the case of trigon lords I believe it most important to consider both the position of a planet in regards to the angular degrees as well as whether it is upon a place "conducive to business". So please don't think it is just a matter of "which house system is the correct one". It is a matter of using the composite concepts in a cooperative manner.


Thanks for that clarification. I think you have mentioned triplicity lords for eminence consideration. What other practical chart considerations would you utilise dynamical houses for? For example, would you do this in examining whether the sect light is the predominator or exclusively rely on whole sign houses? It would certainly seem useful to give additional testimony on a planets power to act beyond just its whole sign placement.

Yes. I think the predomination issue seems especially appropriate to consider the actual degrees and relationship the lights have to the angles to the point that I feel it is more important than which whole sign a light is in, but I still use whole signs in this consideration.

Also what 'dynamical' system do you utilise yourself? Porphyry obviously has history on its side. On the other hand we have systems like Alcabitius and Placidus that seem to better encapsulate the ascensional rising times of the signs.

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. When a planet is in the 9th, it is being deflected away... but when a planet is in a kentron, typically one side is being brought to an angle while half the sign will be deflected away. So in the case of the kentron a planet sufficiently far enough to the right of the midheaven will begin to act like the 9th house (cadent) even if in the whole sign 10th. Schmidt would say the topic is still of a 10th nature, but that its motivation is slack (that of relative cadency).

_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GR



Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 451
Location: USA

Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
Zoidsoft wrote:
Quote:
There are 2 motions, the motion of the Same, and the motion of the Other.


I take it this is Robert Schmidt's way to rephrase what the rest of the astrological community calls primary and secondary motion?


It's from the Timaeus I think.
_________________
Gabe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4960
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
Quote:
So have I understood you correctly that you are stating these terms evolved to reflect primary motion or what Schmidt calls ''the motion of the same''?


Zoidsoft wrote:
Quote:
Yes.


In that case since angularity and cadency derive from the motion of the same ie primary motion is there much logic in referring the whole sign houses in this way? As these reflect the motion of the other ie secondary motion shouldn't considerations of strength/weakness based on angularity be restricted to dynamical division which better reflects this? Or is there a case for retaining such terms like angular/succedent/cadent for whole sign houses too?

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GR



Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 451
Location: USA

Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
Mark wrote:
Quote:
So have I understood you correctly that you are stating these terms evolved to reflect primary motion or what Schmidt calls ''the motion of the same''?


Zoidsoft wrote:
Quote:
Yes.


In that case since angularity and cadency derive from the motion of the same ie primary motion is there much logic in referring the whole sign houses in this way? As these reflect the motion of the other ie secondary motion shouldn't considerations of strength/weakness based on angularity be restricted to dynamical division which better reflects this? Or is there a case for retaining such terms like angular/succedent/cadent for whole sign houses too?

Mark


Secondary motion would be planetary, the signs primary. Not sure what you're meaning here?
_________________
Gabe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 945
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Sun May 24, 2015 2:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GR wrote:
Mark wrote:
Zoidsoft wrote:
Quote:
There are 2 motions, the motion of the Same, and the motion of the Other.


I take it this is Robert Schmidt's way to rephrase what the rest of the astrological community calls primary and secondary motion?


It's from the Timaeus I think.


Yes. Where the Demiurge constructs the 4 elements, the khora, etc...
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 945
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Sun May 24, 2015 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
In that case since angularity and cadency derive from the motion of the same ie primary motion is there much logic in referring the whole sign houses in this way? As these reflect the motion of the other ie secondary motion shouldn't considerations of strength/weakness based on angularity be restricted to dynamical division which better reflects this? Or is there a case for retaining such terms like angular/succedent/cadent for whole sign houses too?


The original language had its own paradigm in place and we moderns have a tendency to replace it with our preconceptions. I see no reason to give whole signs simply to the motion of the other; they participate in both the terrestrial realm and the zodiacal realm.

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).
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1213
Location: California, USA

Posted: Sun May 24, 2015 5:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Curtis Manwaring wrote:
Quote:
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.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 945
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Sun May 24, 2015 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Curtis Manwaring wrote:
Quote:
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.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4960
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun May 24, 2015 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zoidsoft wrote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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
Quote:
It's from the Timaeus I think
.

Zoidsoft wrote:
Quote:
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
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly


Last edited by Mark on Sun May 24, 2015 10:00 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4960
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun May 24, 2015 7:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zoidsoft wrote:
Quote:
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
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 945
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Sun May 24, 2015 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1367
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Mon May 25, 2015 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated