https://deerwimima.tk Hi Robert! I've never really explored using any other house system besides Placidus, as it is the default over at Astrodienst, so I just assumed it was the most commonly used for a reason.
Your post piqued my curiosity, however, so I tested out all of the different house systems they have there, and to my surprise, the Campanus system altered several placements in a way that made them MUCH more accurate. Many of the other systems moved it to the 11th, which is just way off. So, I am wondering if that means the Campanus system is better, or if different house systems work better for different people? You said that you haven't had any problem reading the same chart with different house systems, but have you noticed if some folks really identify more with certain house systems than others?
Also, the link to "House Systems- They're all in your point of view" isn't working. I'd love to read it! Posted by: Katie July 24, at AM. Hi Katie - There are more articles coming over the next two days on how I do what I do and why I use multiple systems simultaneously. I don't really believe one system is better or more accurate than the others.
Each has their proponents, but I believe that it could be the observer effect. And that's not a link. That's the title to the article that I rewrote and reprinted just under that line of text. Posted by: Robert July 24, at AM. Posted by: christy July 24, at AM. Thank you so very much for this article. You have answered some of my "never answered" astrological questions vis a vie the house system.
I have been a student and practitioner of astrology since I was I am now And astrology has been a tool that let's me know I am right where I am supposed to be and that all is well, or chaotic depending upon the transits. The one thing I always struggled with was the house system. I would do the Equal first, then Placidus as it seems to be the astrological standard. And I always felt that both applied. Or that I was perhaps missing something. You are one of my favorite Guru's and I come to Aquarius Papers at least 3x's a week. Thank you Robert for being a great teacher, and mystic.
Lots of Love - Abigail. Posted by: abby July 24, at AM. It usually falls somewhere in the zone created by Porphyry and Equal, and never extends it past one or two degrees. Angles will never change regardless of what system we use. Again, more articles will post on the subject tomorrow and the next day. I never use anything except Equal for solar returns, and believe that is the only accurate house system to use for solar returns. I don't do Lunar return charts, but would think that since it's only a 30 day reading, it would need to be researched to see which is more accurate.
Again, I don't believe any of them tell the whole picture by themselves. I don't do diurnal charts.
And I use my combination of systems for Lunation charts in my own work, but haven't placed priority on Placidus for over 35 years. I used it for the first few years of my study and practice, and then abandoned it for my multi-system approach. Hi abby - Thanks for your kind words about the work. Glad you also came to see that both systems can be applied, which offers a way to combine the two rather than get locked into an "either-or" approach, which I think unnecessarily straightjackets our understanding of how the space between the angles is divided into relevant life sectors.
And you're most welcome. Glad you found your way to this gentle community! Posted by: Robert July 24, at PM. Hi Robert, first: I love your articles! I'm rather a beginner and I've been using until now only the Placidus system. My question: What about planets retrogrades on the cusps?
Thus, I ask me, the energies of the planet retrograde in the succeeding house are more likely felt in the preceeding house due to the retrograde condition, and viceversa, when it is in the previous house the planet's influences rather remain there? Posted by: adriana July 25, at AM. Posted by: christy July 27, at AM. Robert: Thank you so much for this post. This is the type of perspective that's needed to bring some sanity and grounding to the Astrological community. I've always said that we must be able to see ourselves from a myriad of dimensions. Agree with you whole heartedly on this, Robert.
I tend to use Porphyry for the most part, but there have been cases where planets seemed to express themselves in the adjacent house indicated by another system. I appreciate your statements here because it helps alleviate my insecurity as an astrologer "fudging" the house cusps. I enjoyed your analogy of the guitar frets.
It's like saying I need a little more, or a little less, time-space to get to that point of Saturnian realization. Posted by: Brian September 21, at AM. An unfortunate side effect of this process was that the discussion eventually shifted entirely towards determining which form of quadrant house division was the most accurate and in the process the concept of whole sign houses as a system was completely forgotten. This is a survey of the type of house division in use in the first thousand years of the practice of western astrology.
He actually personally referred to it as the Sign House System. Robert Hand who had been practicing astrology for something like 40 years at that point, started testing it out and using it. He found it more effective than any other system and so started popularizing the technique from the mid s. So there is a big shift that is taking place, a lot of people are switching to whole sign houses.
Were a thousand years of astrologers wrong? Why did this switch to quadrant houses take place around the ninth century? There are many different possible theories and Robert Hand speculated at one point in his monograph on whole sign houses that what may have taken place is there may have been a misunderstanding or potentially a translation error at some point in the ninth century where some of the Medieval Arabic astrologers were receiving the earlier Greek astrological tradition and they were translating works from astrological authors from the Hellenistic tradition from Greek into Arabic and that they may have gotten false impression that the Greek astrologers were using quadrant houses all of the time rather than what they were actually doing which was just using quadrant houses within the context of certain techniques eg.
He began presenting his charts and immediately we got first our first surprise. The charts were of course sidereal; that was no surprise. The surprise was the house system! The houses each consisted of an entire sign and only one sign. That is where my earliest speculation stopped. 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. 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. Further investigations indicated that the vast majority of Hellenistic astrologers used the signs as houses in exactly the same manner.
However, by the time that Europeans discovered Arabic astrology and began to translate it into Latin, the Alcabitius house system had displaced the Whole Sign system. Impressed by the weight of evidence from Hellenistic astrology, I began drawing my charts in such a manner that I could read them using either Koch or Whole Signs.
I found that invariably the Whole Sign Houses gave better results, even when the ascendant was in the late degrees of a sign. I was not prepared to accept this conclusion; I was intensely skeptical. But I was forced to Whole Sign Houses and from that time forward I have never found it necessary to use any other system for any purpose. James Holden in his writings has also noted the tendency of these early authors to use Whole Sign Houses.
They fly in the face of the conventional wisdom in astrology, but Whole Sign Houses work very well indeed, including the succedent houses. Many astrologers find them hard to accept. However, logic is quite simple. There is no such thing as a house apart from a sign. There are only signs. When they are counted from Aries, they are signs; when they are counted from the rising sign, they are houses. Functioning as houses is one of the things that signs do. The current materialistic scientific paradigm negates the idea of an astrological influence because it has no recognised system through which astrological influences can work.
The current materialistic scientific paradigm is outdated by the discovery of the weird and wonderful world of Quantum Physics as discovered a century ago. So how has or should have! Okay, this really has physicists scratching their heads.
Those firmly entrenched in the materialistic paradigm have done everything they can to try and explain this within their system. There are a small sub-set of physicists that are thinking outside of the box and supposing a world where consciousness is primary and the material world of particles does not come into existence unless observed by some level of consciousness. In the materialistic paradigm matter is primary and consciousness is an epi-phenomenon arising from matter.
This puts it very neatly into a parallel with the ancient mystical religions which all consider consciousness to be fundamental in their views of the world. So, however it works, it appears that consciousness is primary and so we can infer from this a realisation of how the astrological effect manifests itself. As the material world is divided into basic subatomic forms so the consciousness that it derives from must express a template or mirror of these fundamental forms. Okay here comes the best bit. There are SIX types of quark known as up, down, strange, charm, bottom and top.
So it appears that there is an inherent 6 fold division in the world of matter and thus by inference there is also a basic 6 fold division in the world of consciousness the psyche. This is why the 12 fold division of the circle as used in the Zodiac is so fundamental to the human psyche.
With a little thought it can be seen how this may work. Each pair of signs form a whole part. Aries and Taurus are the pairing of the masculine and feminine archetypes. Gemini and Cancer are the pairing of thought and feelings. Leo and Virgo are self-centeredness and servitude. Libra and Scorpio are level evenness and extremism. Sagittarius and Capricorn are expansion and limitation. Aquarius and Pisces are universal mind and feeling. As the collective consciousness of the human race began to observe the sky and the movements of the Sun, Moon, planets and fixed stars we found in these motions a framework upon which to define the fundamental divisions of the conscious psyche.
The moment in the natural world where the new agricultural year started. The constellations through the ecliptic became defined as they are now around the 6th century BC. At the time, the precession of the equinoxes had not been discovered. Classical Hellenistic astrology consequently developed without consideration of the effects of precession.
The discovery of the precession of the equinoxes is attributed to Hipparchus, a Greek astronomer active in the later Hellenistic period ca. Ptolemy writing some years after Hipparchus was thus aware of the effects of precession. He opted for a definition of the zodiac based on the point of vernal equinox, i. So the defining of the constellations around the ecliptic roughly marking the 12 zodiac divisions at the time of the great Axial age conjunction see below , created the backdrop for the accurate observations of planetary positions from thenceforth.
Or at least until precession annoyingly started to shift this natural frame of reference!
Lao Tzu — possibly legendary figure. Contemporaneous with Confucius. Attributed founder of Taoism. I would argue here that the foundation of the modern astrological tradition derived from the energy of this conjunction. This may sound like new age waffle but there is evidence to support the existence of the non-material or psychic realm from outside of quantum physics. One obvious consideration is the existence of instincts.
If you stop to consider exactly what instincts are you inevitably come to the conclusion that they are a manifestation of the collective psyche of a species or group of species. In Biology, the current paradigm cannot explain instinct nor can it explain how consciousness can arise as an epi-phenomenon of the brain. A materialist will argue that the physical structure of DNA encodes for the development of life and also will explain instinct through this coding.
They will also deny that there is any other esoteric field or force that is involved in these processes. Matter is all there is!
And we live in a soulless universe.