posted September 17, 2008 08:12 AM              

For me Placidus works best. And I`m pretty surprised by this. I actually have a friend in Sweden with ASC on 15° Cancer and IC on 15° Leo, and I thought, I was damned sure that this time Placidus would fail. Come on, 3 houses pressed into one sign? That can`t be right.

And I interpreted her chart with Equal and Placidus without telling her which one I took (it wouldn´t have mattered anyway, since she didn´t know astrology back then). Also, it was pretty soon in our friendship, maybe 2 or 3 months of knowing each other.
And I let her pick the one that delivered the results, closest to her experiences.

Completely contrary to what I had believed before she picked the Placidus chart; she was actually a bit startled at how close it was to what she experienced.

posted September 17, 2008 04:23 PM              

How can we use a system, that fails at some place on this world? Do we tell those people they "fall out of" astrology?

It`s really a shortcoming of the popular housesystems.

Personally, I haven`t seen a chart that works with the Koch system, at least not applying traditional astrology. The API seems to only work with Koch. So maybe it depends on the astrological system / school we apply?

Maybe some theories only work with certain housesystems?

If this is true, this leaes me deeply unsatisfied; whenever I have those thoughts I feel deeply drawn to the beautiful simplicity of the equal system.

And yet, I still can`t deny I do identify with my Moon in 2nd house very much (in Placidus), even though in Equal I have Venus conjunct the cusp of the 2nd house (from 1st house), so it could be interpreted in the 2nd house, too.

So, what do I really feel? That unaspected Aquarius Moon in 2nd house (in equal), as ruler of 8th house?

Or do I really feel (in equal) the Venus in Capricorn in 2nd house, as ruler of 6th and 11th house, which also squares Pluto close to the cusp of the 11th house?

posted September 17, 2008 06:55 PM              

DD, not a great example to use. You could have interpreted it wrong, or she could have been saying yes, just to make you shut up
Sure it wasnt that, but you ever seen Randy James? He gave everyone a reading and asked students to give an opinion on how it matched with their personality. All of them said it did, but it was the same readout for everyone.

Sure you get the point, and that only shows Randy knows very little about astrology. I thought he is supposed to be clever!

posted September 17, 2008 07:27 PM            

Yes, EQUAL rocks... there is no other system that works better, sorry folks!

I did my entire rectification a year ago on placidus and other systems... then this year l did it again on equal - WOW. Much more accurate and l find that it is more accurate for synastry, composite, progressed too.

Personally l just wouldn't bother using anything else.... and as you can see, even Kick It is converted!

posted September 17, 2008 08:29 PM            

god, do l really come across as being so anal? lol

posted September 17, 2008 08:43 PM              

I have not found that the time systems "fail".
The difference they reflect is a very real one,
as we can see clearly enough by looking at a globe.

According to Stephen Arroyo, when a planet transits the houses of such a chart, what happens is that the planet takes its time in the big houses, but remains in that area of experience. When transiting the smaller houses, he says, the planet gets the job done very quickly. Arroyo is a relatively careful and subtle astrologer, in my experience, and bases his conclusions on hard evidence. We should ask people from extreme latitudes if this is their experience, as it appears to have been with many of Arroyo's clients. He uses the Koch system, btw.

posted September 18, 2008 06:47 AM              

"not a great example to use."
no, you´re right it wasn´t just great, it was amazingly brilliant.

Sorry, I don`t know what it is, but there is something about you that irritates me.
I don`t mean it bad, I just noticed that I tend to react rather unusually irrational to what you say.
So if I overreact a bit, don´t mind me. I`m not being serious. Just feeling a bit defensive.

" You could have interpreted it wrong"
Yes, of course. As anyone who is doing astrology could be wrong at anytime. No matter what housesystem he or she uses.

"or she could have been saying yes, just to make you shut up "
No, she didn`t.

"ot much practical use to most of you, but when I do transits for something (and do a LOT of it.) when I switched to Equal (and then whole sign) I got much better results. Much better....not someones subjective opinion, but actual results."
So my research only brings OPINIONS, and your research brings RESULTS?

Actually in that reading I described I didn´t get too much into a description of her personal traits, but I described things that actually happened to her; childhood, parents, relationships, job, health and such things.
And we hadn`t talked about that before, and no I am not that intuitive to just GUESS it right.

Lara,

".. there is no other system that works better, sorry folks!"
Now I`m feeling defensive towards you, too. Sorry to say that, but that is just not true.
It might work better for YOU, but that doesn`t mean it works better for everyone.
There are thousands of astrologers who have equally convincing results using some other systems.

So maybe astrology doesn`t work at all and we only think it does. And because we are so convinced that some thing or the other thing works, it does (self fulfilling prophecy).

"I did my entire rectification a year ago on placidus and other systems... then this year l did it again on equal - WOW."
Hmm, when astrology is subjective, then recitification is the most subjective thing ever.
It could be the right time, or maybe it isn`t. As long as it works for you, it is good. But it doesn`t mean it works for all.

Heart--Shaped Cross,

"I have not found that the time systems "fail"."
Yes they do, at least at certain times (at others they work superbly).
For example: on 18th december 1974 at 2:02 p.m. in Hammerfest the ASC falls on 03°40 Aquarius and the MC falls onto 03°39 Aqarius - all systems which have MC as cusp of 10th house and ASC as cusp of 1st house fail at that time.

"The difference they reflect is a very real one,
as we can see clearly enough by looking at a globe."
For other times, when the ASC doesn`t fall onto the MC, I agree.

I also agree on Stephen Arroyo, he is a wonderful astrologer, and I`ve learned much from his books. But even he sais that it`s worth trying out the equal system.

Parafora,

"How can one be sure? These are some subjective things"
I agree. And I always strive for a way to get some more objectives into that subjective thinking.
But maybe it is impossible, as we are all being subjective and having our pet theories and housesystems and orbs and aspects and so on.

Personally I would love it if the equal system worked. Because as I said, it is so beautiful, and it fits to the way astrology developed.
For example: why should we have inequal houses, we do not have inequal signs either.

I`m not sure we can come to a conclusion using our own personal readings on other people or experiences, because they are highly subjective. We see something, we experience something and before we know it, we have already interpreted it.

You know we probably should research clearly indicated EVENTS rather than experiences, only this way we could bring a little bit of objective thinking into it. And even with those events, we tend to put our own interpretation on it.

posted September 18, 2008 10:50 AM              

Development of House Systems in Astrology after Classical Astrology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition: [Astrological Houses] The development of Houses and Houses Systems since Classical times.

Houses and house systems seem to have taken a long and obscure road since the time of the early Classical Astrologers. Nowadays, some astrologers ignore houses completely as being too tainted by uncertainty to use. In this they follow the tradition of Claudius Ptolemy, the "Father of Classical Astrology", who in his seminal work, Tetrabiblos, appears to have had little time for houses at all. He ignores them, from which fact various astrological commentators have concluded that he considered houses meaningless mysticism. It is certainly true that houses are purely a symbolic description of the heavens, whereas the positions of the stars and the planets are measurable concrete things.

For others of us, houses remain very important. This presents us with a problem, as unfortunately, in modern times, three classes of house system exist: ecliptic-based, time-based and space-based and these yield at least twenty methods of calculating the astrological houses on the Zodiac Wheel. In these different house systems the planets can appear in different houses: the planets aren't moving but the placement of each house is different in the various systems. [See for example how the different choice of modern house system changes the spread of planets in houses for Prince William.] Hence for those of us committed to the modern houses, the choice of house system can radically alter a horoscope.

History: The most commonly used house system at present, the Placidus system was not that used by the Classical originators of astrology. In fact, it appears that there were three separate house systems in classical astrology: Temples Cardinal Points and Quadrants, and Lots.

Over the last two millennia the fashion in house systems has gone through Alcabitus, Regiomontanus and now Placidus. And sadly this appears to be little more than fashion. It is also unfortunately true that an astrologer's preference for a particular house system is often based on how good our own chart looks with that house system. And that our clients - given the choice - often pick their chart using the house system that gives them the best chart. Not a very rigorous, nor truthful, method of casting a horoscope. In fact the lack of a rigorous choice of house system is one of the most fundamental problems in modern astrology. I would add to this that the divergence of our house systems from those of the Classical astrologers, also gives great cause for concern.

Which System should you Use?: Who knows? It is rumored that one particular national meeting of astrologers descended into a fist-fight trying to resolve this question! I have yet to see a rigorous test of the house systems: no one appears to have done a study as to which gives the most accurate prediction. If you wish to choose based on popularity, Placidus, Koch and Equal House are the most common systems for modern Western individual astrology. All three start with the Ascendant on the cusp of the first house. In Placidus and Koch, the Midheaven is then the cusp [start] of the tenth house. But there is no requirement for this in the Equal House system. The Equal system has cusps which are generally completely dissimilar to Placidus and Koch. In turn, Placidus and Koch differ in the cusps of the second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and twelfth houses. In both Placidus and Koch some Zodiac signs may never appear on a cusp, because of the variable house size. The more northerly the latitude in which you were born the more likely this is to happen. In contrast for the Equal system all signs will appear on a cusp.

To be honest, the more I have studied house systems the more I think that none of the above should be used. I think we should return to the Temples, Cardinal Points and Quadrants and Lots system that we appear, inexplicably, to have moved away from over the centuries. Classical astrologers used these three systems - basing their work on several hundred years of astrology; by what right do we think we should be doing something different?

Newspaper Horoscopes: For these a variation of the Sun system is used. The Sun's position is used to mark the first house, with the first house being placed identically to the zodiac sign. The house sizes are equal. This is a completely invalid approach, only making even a poor approximation to a standard horoscope for the one-twelfth of people born in that sign with that sign as their Ascendant. Worthless... but fun...

House Systems:

Alcabitus [or Alchabitius or Alcabitius or Alcibitius or Alcabitius Declination]: [Time-based] [The standard house system in the late Middle Ages] This method of house division first appears in a treatise written by Rhetorius, the Egyptian (505 AD) entitled From the Treasury of Antiochus, an Explanation and Narration of the Whole Art of Astrology. The system was attributed to Abu al-Saqr al-Qabisi Abd al-Aziz ibn Uthman (d. 967) also known as Alcabitius [and variant spellings], the author of the Introduction to the Art of Judgments of the Stars (c. 916-967). Although this system was presented by various other Arabic writers of the time, Alcabitius' text was translated into Latin by John Seville in the 12th century and by Erhard Ratdolt in Venice in 1503, thus helping to popularize the method.

The Midheaven and Ascendant are respectively the 10th- and 1st- house cusps. The remaining cusps are determined by the trisection of the semidiurnal and seminocturnal arcs of the Ascendant. The houses are formed by the lunes created by the true house circles that pass through these cusps and the North and South points of the Horizon. This varies from other quadrant systems, in which the trisection occurs along the ecliptic. Unlike the Placidus system it works well in the polar regions. One author notes that the method is a "logical development from the Porphyry system" since that method trisects the semi-arc of the ecliptic while this one trisects the diurnal arc and projects it onto the ecliptic by means of hour circles.

The "Classical House" [Time-based] system is a variation on this, incorporating Ptolemy's five degree correction. The diurnal arc of the Ascendant is tri-sected and projected by hour circles onto the ecliptic to form the house cusps, but five degrees is subtracted from the Ascendant to form the first house cusp. This is a modern, slight correction to the Alcibitius Declination house system, despite its name.

Campanus: [Space-based] Named after Giovanni di Campani (1233-1296). The vertical great circle from east to west is divided into 12 equal parts and great circles are drawn through these divisions and the north and south points on the horizon. The intersection points of these circles with the ecliptic are the house cusps. Thought by some authors to be the same system as that used by Al-Biruni in the 11th century under the name 'the system of Hermes' and perhaps that used by Marcus Manilius in his work, Astronomica, dated 10 AD - though as this latter is a poem it makes interpretation highly problematical. Used by Dane Rudhyar and Charles Zane in modern times.

Equal: [Ecliptic-based] [Third most commonly used system in Western Astrology] The zodiac is divided into 12 houses of 30 degrees each starting from the Ascendant. Note that in this house system the Midheaven is not necessarily the cusp of the tenth house. This system is reputed to have the oldest pedigree, as some authors state that it is the system used by Ptolemy. Others state it dates back to the time of Petosiris (1st century, BC). This would be consistent with the lack of status for the Midheaven, which was not considered important in early classical astrology.

Earth House: Zero degrees of Libra is taken as the first house cusp and each house cusp is thirty degrees farther along in the zodiac.

Horizontal; The house cusps are defined by division of the horizon into 12 directions. The first house cusp is not identical with the Ascendant but is located precisely in the east.

Koch/GOHS: [Time-based] [Second most commonly used system in Western Astrology] This system is named for its advocate German astrologer Walter Koch (1895-1970) . It was invented by Fiedrich Zanzinger and Heinz Specht. In German-speaking countries, it is also called the "Geburtsorthäusersystem" (GOHS), i.e. the "Birth place house system". This name was coined by Walter Koch following his belief that the Koch system was more related to the birth place than other systems. He believed this, because all house cusps in this system are calculated with the same polar height, the "polar height of the birth place": this has the same value as the geographic latitude.

With the Koch system, the house cusps are in fact defined by horizon lines at different times. To calculate the cusps 11 and 12, one can take the time it took the Midheaven degree to move from the horizon to the culmination, divide this time into three and see what ecliptic degree was on the horizon at the thirds. Why Koch thought this procedure should be more related to the birth place remains obscure.

Midheaven: The Midheaven (Midheaven) is taken as the cusp of the tenth house and each house is thirty degrees further along in the zodiac. Note that in this house system the Ascendant is not necessarily the cusp of the first house.

Meridian or Vehlow-Equal or Zariel: The Meridian house system was proposed by the Australian astrologer Zariel (David Cope) in the early 1900s. It has never received much attention, but was investigated by American astrologers Bruce Lloyd and Garth Allen in the late 1950s. This system is also referred to as the "Axial Rotation System," a term which is somewhat misleading, as no rotation is involved, but derives from the use of the North and South Celestial poles for the construction of the great circles. Circles are drawn through the poles and twelve points that divide the equator equally, starting at the meridian. These points are then projected onto the ecliptic. The Midheaven is identical to the 10th house cusp. The Ascendant is not equal to the 1st cusp, but is equivalent to the so called "East Point" or equatorial ascendant. This system works in extreme latitudes [the poles]. The Meridian house system is most popular with Uranian astrologers.

Moon: The Moon is taken as the tenth house cusp and each house cusp is thirty degrees farther along in the zodiac. Note that in this house system neither the Ascendant nor the Midheaven are necessarily house cusps.

Morinus: [Space-based] Named after Jean-Baptiste Morin (1583-1656), known as Morinus. The Morinus system uses great circles that pass through the poles of the ecliptic and through points that are spaced at 30-degree intervals along the Celestial Equator, beginning with the intersection of the Celestial Equator and the East Point. The cusps are determined by the intersections of these great circles and the ecliptic. The houses are not of equal size. The Midheaven is not the same as the 10th cusp. The ascendant is not the same as the 1st cusp. This system is unusual in this respect, that it doesn't begin with the Ascendant but with true East. [The Ascendant is often not at true East.]

Natural Graduation: A complicated mathematical variation of the Porphyry House System, as described on pp. 46- 47 in "New Waite's Compendium" by Colin Evans.

Natural Hours: [Time-based] The times of sunrise and sunset are noted for the location and date of the horoscope. The degrees of the Ascendant at Sun rise and Sun set give the degrees of the Ascendant and descendant respectively. The hemispheres between the Ascendant and Descendant are divided into six sectors, each representing two 'hours' of time. These sectors also give the house cusps. Note that the Ascendant and descendant are no longer tied together as a pair in this system, and the Midheaven may fall in any house.

Octopos: The prime vertical is cut at forty-five degree intervals starting at the east point of the horizon, and these points are projected onto the ecliptic using house circles. This produces eight houses instead of twelve as by most other systems, and these are then numbered starting at the descendant and going counter-clockwise, so that the house placed at the seventh house is called the first house, and the house normally near the ninth house is the second house, etc. For those persons with a fear of the twelfth house, this is the one to use.

Placidus or Placidian: [Time-based] [Most commonly used system in modern Western Astrology, not through any particular merit but because, as is widely accepted, it was the one for which affordable data tables were available in the 19th century.] This system is named after the Italian monk Placidus de Titis (1590-1668) and was found in his work Primum Mobile. The cusps are defined by divisions of semidiurnal and seminocturnal arcs. The 11th cusp is the point on the ecliptic that has completed 2/3 of its semidiurnal arc, the 12th cusp the point that has completed 1/3 of it. The 2nd cusp has completed 2/3 of its seminocturnal arc, and the 3rd cusp 1/3. Some authors argue that this rather than the Equal house system is closer to the original Ptolemaic ideal. I find this unlikely as this is a time-based system whereas Ptolemy probably thought in terms of an ecliptic system. It may also be an attempt to justify is current dominant position by referring it back to the wellspring of astrology. However it is an elegant system.

Polich-Page or Topocentric: [Time-based] This system was introduced in 1961 by Wendel Polich and A.P. Nelson Page. The tangents of the polar height of the 11th house is the tangents of the geo. latitude divided by 3. (2/3 of it are taken for the 12th house cusp.) The philosophical reasons for this algorithm are obscure. Nor is this house system more “topocentric” (i.e. birth-place-related) than any other house system. (c.f. the misunderstanding with the “birth place system”.) The “topocentric” house cusps are close to Placidus house cusps except for high geographical latitudes. It also works for latitudes beyond the polar circles, wherefore some consider it to be an improvement of the Placidus system. However the striking philosophical idea behind Placidus (i.e. the division of diurnal and nocturnal arcs of points of the zodiac) is completely destroyed.

Porphyry: [Ecliptic-based] Attributed to a Neo-Platonist named Porphyry (233-c.304), a Greek philosopher and student of Plotinus. Porphyry is best known for his work Introduction to Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, which is essentially an encyclopedic dictionary of astrological terms and techniques. In chapter 43 entitled Determination of the Angular, Cadent, and Succedent Houses to the Degree, Porphyry shows how the cusps are derived by trisecting the semi-arc between the Ascendant and Midheaven. The Porphyry system seems to be used in at least some 'Vedic' Jyotish Indian astrology.

After the Ascendant and Midheaven ecliptic positions have been calculated, the semi-arc between them is computed by subtracting one from the other. This semi-arc -- which represents one quadrant of the chart -- is then divided by 3 to determine the arc of each of the intermediate houses. This constant is then added to the Midheaven to yield the cusp of the 11th house, to the 11th to yield the cusp of the 12th, and to the 12th to confirm the Ascendant degree. The cusps of the 4th and 7th houses will be 180 degrees from the Ascendant and Midheaven respectively and opposite in Zodiacal sign. The same quadrant arc division process is applied to the northeastern, northwestern, and southwestern quadrants of the chart to yield the cusps of houses 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9. Because this process yields the same constant in each quadrant arc division, house cusps 11 and 5; 3 and 9; 2 and 8; and 6 and 12 will be 180 degrees apart. Also houses 11 and 3, 9 and 5 will be 120 degrees apart; houses 12 and 2, 8 and 6 will be 60 degrees apart.

Some authors note that the first appearance of a description and explanation of this method is made by Vettius Valens (150-175 AD) in Book III, Chapter 2 of his Anthology entitled The Authentic Degrees of the Angles. Valens himself attributes this method to an otherwise unknown astrologer named Orion.

Regiomontanus: [Space-based] [The standard house system in the later Middle Ages, it supplanted the Alcabitus system.] Named after the Johannes Müller (called "Regiomontanus", because Müller came from Königsberg). The equator is divided into 12 equal parts and great circles are drawn through these divisions and the north and south points on the horizon. The intersection points of these circles with the ecliptic are the house cusps.(1436-1476).

Solar: The position of the Sun is taken as the first house cusp and each house cusp is thirty degrees farther along in the zodiac. Note that in this house system neither the Ascendant nor the Midheaven are necessarily house cusps. This system is commonly used when the Ascendant and Midheaven are not known. It is therefore commonly used in newspaper astrology where a horoscope is being produced for everyone of a certain Sun-sign.

Sun: The Sun is taken as the fourth house cusp and each house cusp is thirty degrees farther along in the zodiac. Note that in this house system neither the Ascendant nor the Midheaven are necessarily house cusps.

Topocentric: See Polich-Page.

Vehlow An equal house system promulgated by Johannes Vehlow ( b 1980 Germany).

Zariel: See Meridian.

Classical Astrology House Links:

01: The Twelve Houses of Classical Astrology
02: House Systems in Classical Astrology
(a): Cardinal Points and Quadrants
(b): Temples
(c): Lots
03: House Systems after the Time of Manilius
04: House System Examples for Prince William's Horoscope

© Dr Shepherd Simpson, Astrological Historian
Historical Astrology

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See the new Astrological Index for the meaning of other astrological words and phrases

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Galactic Zodiac

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.geocities.com/astrologyhouses/housesystems.htm

posted September 18, 2008 03:34 PM              

It annoys me that I got annoyed.

posted September 18, 2008 03:57 PM            

Most of the more knowledgeable astrologers I have come across have been into equal

posted September 18, 2008 04:13 PM              

I never said it wouldn`t work for me. At least I hope I didn`t say that.
I can identify with some of the Equal positions and maybe I will switch to Equal again, but all I wanted to point out is that I think it`s a bit arrogant to say: I am right, because i feel what I feel, and all the others are wrong. And who doesn`t share my opinion, is just a bad astrologer.

All I am asking of people (not just you or Kick it or my mother or my boss) is to include this little "for me".
This works for me, or this doesn`t work for me. But in my opinion we can`t force our truth onto all other people; that`s almost like a mental rape.

When I am doing my theories, I am happy to see if they work for many people (that of course backs me up), but I`m very sure that they won`t work for ALL people out there, because those other people may look onto astrology from a different angle, and from their angle it looks right, too, and they will have good results, just as I have from my angle.

I`m probably reading too much in short sentences (that is just my nature I fear), but in a way, if you say: Equal is the only system that works, and I use Placidus, then it feels like you were saying: "Equal is the only system that works, and if you can`t see this, then you`re just plainly dumb."

Am I being oversensitive? Yes, I am, definitely. But that happens when you have a SCorpio Mother with SCorpio-Mercury around, who twists your brain and just bascially tells you that your perception of the world is just wrong.
Maybe because of these experiences I came to really dislike the "Black-and-white"-thoughts (and yet I do long for a definite answer and definite rules, that always work; I never said it was easy living with my mind).

Having said that, I can only repeat from a theoretical point of view Equal is much more appealing and Placidus or Koch just seem like mathematical constructs.
It`s already in the way they are being calculated. They measure the time a degree needs to wander from ASC to MC and then divide it through 3, but actually we want to fixate the moment we are born and not the whole day, don`t we?

So, yes, I do think in the end I will end up with Equal again. Even though I so not feel like a 3rd house Moon.

posted September 18, 2008 04:35 PM            

well, to be honest EQUAL makes sense because they are 30 deg houses... and anyone can use whatever they wish but l almost guarantee that if they try equal (like l did and Kick it did) they won't go back!!!!

All the top dudes on astro and Kim's site use equal... there must be a reason

posted September 18, 2008 04:42 PM            

but why is the unequal then default on astro.com ?

posted September 18, 2008 04:46 PM              

But I agree with you 30 degree houses do make sense.

" l almost guarantee that if they try equal (like l did and Kick it did) they won't go back!!!!"
I did. I did go back, and if I remember it right, Izo did, too.

Well, in my case that doesn`t mean, I won`t go back to Equal again; I kinda fear I will always be switching between Placidus and Equal. I just can`t choose.

"All the top dudes on astro and Kim's site use equal"
Do they?
WEll, Stephen Forrest doesn`t; neither does Stephen Arroyo, neither do a whole bunch of astrologers (and they are not all bad astrologers).

And even if they all used one system, and I was convinced, really convinced, another was right, I would be the only o ne using the other system.
Problem is I am not completely convinced.

Peace (You know I am not trying to annoy you, I am just voicing my opinion here, and that is not meant as an offense)