As mentioned, I won’t be watching the 7 hour review of my 60 minute conference talk. Apart from having too many things that would benefit from 7 hours attention, I made it a policy years ago to have minimum involvement with Chris Brennan’s work (that way, I can get on with my own work, based on what the primary sources and informed academics say, and not have to assume that the purpose of my time is to fact-check the work of someone else).

I took this decision after noticing a tendency that if someone mentions the same point as Chris, he assumes they take that point from his work, or he becomes enraged if they don’t reference him in that place. Hence, I simply give him and all his work a wide berth– his postings are blocked on all my social media accounts, I haven’t read his book, and I don’t listen to/watch his podcasts (even though I know I am missing some good stuff there, because he does have a genuine talent in acting as a show host, and has had some great guests).

So I don’t know how he managed to generate 7 hours of criticism – a few points have drifted back to me and I’ll answer to each and every point put to me here, in this thread. So if anyone has any – as yet – unanswered concerns about anything he has brought attention to (regarding my comments in my conference talk), put the query here and I’ll respond.

To clarify, I am interested in answering concerns relating to anything I addressed or said in my own presentation, not exploring opinions that go beyond that. If you have a query about anything I said, include the time stamp of the video, so I can refer to the presentation point (video available here - https://vimeo.com/765620082/7d6469fe5b)

1) Re- the early reference to the use of signs for houses

Orisis, you wrote:

Just check 01.38.00 Koch mentioned wsh in his book Horoskop und himmelshausern

This point is explored in more detail in Tony Louis’s blogpost:

My follow-up comment on that shows why I don’t label this a primary source definition (because it is a modern commentary on ancient technique), but it is interesting nonetheless as one of the earlier accounts to talk about the issue.
As made clear in my presentation, I wasn’t aiming to give a complete account of every single modern-day reference ever – I made it clear that I was talking in general terms about the information that was being taken note of in the community of astrologers I was involved with. I would still maintain the same point - that seemed to start more effectively with James Holden, which influenced the PH team and then really took off from there.

[Edited to add this in on 14/02/23]
Incidentally, if new knowledge comes to light or is discussed in more detail as a follow up, that is viewed as an updated or more informed exploration, not evidence of someone “lying???. What person in their right mind would label this 'a lie'?

From Chris Brennan's PDF presentation - 12 Reasons why Whole Sign Houses is the Best System of House Division

When I watched the title of the podcast. I came here to offer my little support.

Brennan has a huge ego, and found an idiot followship who will eat his every word. I am sorry that he is now so full of himself that he wants to attack people by name.

I was yugh about him for a long time, but now I hope he causes his own downfall.

Yuzuru, another whole house "denialist"

Thank you Yuzuru It is great to see you here again.

Orisis, I am happy to put my reputation out-there for attack, providing these points of historical debate get aired. I'm not so willing to engage in pointless discussion via social media with people who don't put their real names to their posts, though, so I'll stick to the plan of dealing here in this thread with any issues of relevance that call for review.
I've already explained my reason why I will not be watching the video, and won't be engaging in repeat explanations of what has already been explained.

2) Did I remix the audio of Robert Schmidt?

I read Twitter reports that I falsified the 1 min audio recording of Robert Schmidt, played in my presentation:

“certain sections were moved around and the meaning is not the same. There is a splicing remix that is played as if he's saying certain clauses in a different order and in different sentences???.

Firstly, I wouldn't even know how to do that! I also don’t know if it is possible to download that audio. I captured the video by playing it out loud on my own computer and creating a sound file from that.

Because my own presentation was very limited in time (and to ensure I wasn’t breaking copyright and only making appropriate use of the material as it relates to a theoretical argument) I ensured the audio clip was 1 minute only, which keeps it within the remit of fair use within debate.

Then I cut the superflous point that was not in any way relevant to the point I was making, just as one would when quoting from printed texts – my point being how the situation had shifted so dramatically from the early claims that there was no evidence of anything but whole sign houses in ancient astrology.

But I did want to leave in the context of the question from Eric Francis, which shows Schmidt agreeing with his caricature of the oversimplification of the argument by what he calls “fundamentalists??? – and so it could be noted how even Schmidt himself agreed very willingly with that. I keenly stressed how I was playing a 1-minute clip only from a 2 hour interview, and gave the link so it could all be listed to in full context.

https://planetwaves.net/robert-schmidt- ... ology-poa/

I would have loved to have delved deeper into the progression of the argument from
1) no other house systems exist, to
2) OK, they do, but let’s not assume they were used, to
3) the preferred way to divide the chart into 12 houses is to cut it up by two forms of division at the same time…

BUT I had only 60 minutes to give my entire overview, including intros and wrap up. I didn’t have hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours to do forensic investigation on the intricate analysis of every single point myself.

Let me show a screenshot of the entire conversation here, so everyone can see what was used and its fuller context. The point I really want to cut to is Robert Schmidt himself saying this:

“you cannot conclude from the prevalence of whole sign places in different texts that they were either the original system or the dominant system???

It is nice to illustrate where I can agree wholeheartedly with Robert Schmidt.
[The above is a captured screenshot from a Twitter post by S.J. Anderson - I haven't fact-checked minutely but assume this is correct]

3) Was I correct in saying that Robert Schmidt “never translated Book 9????

I said in my presentation that Schmidt never translated Book 9 of Valens.
I have since seen reports by those close to him saying that he did, in fact, translate book 9, but chose not to publish it. OK, well that is new information to me.
I’m curious to know why he chose not to publish it, but this comment was based on what was available to know, not an example of me “lying??? as some would like to suggest.

yuzuru wrote:When I watched the title of the podcast. I came here to offer my little support.

Brennan has a huge ego, and found an idiot followship who will eat his every word. I am sorry that he is now so full of himself that he wants to attack people by name.

I was yugh about him for a long time, but now I hope he causes his own downfall.

Yuzuru, another whole house "denialist"

Yes lots of Wows and Greats out there from his crowd

4) Was I wrong to say that Zoller pulled out of PH “within a matter of months????, or to characterise Schmidt's early expertise as philosophical but not astrological?

Some people have said I misreported how long Robert Zoller was involved with Project Hindsight.

I agree with suggestions that my choice of words might give an impression of a quicker departure than actually happened – because what does “a matter of months??? mean? but deny that I misrepresented anything here.

Here is the information from the PH website confirming that Zoller left the Project within the first year of its launch. He did NOT remain with PH until 1995, and beyond, as some people (claiming to correct me with the “reality??? of the situation have stated on social media):
http://www.projecthindsight.com/archives/history.html

The bottom line is that Zoller’s departure was sudden and unexpected, and he didn’t hang around for long.

To add a little extra - he did re-establish a re-connection with Schmidt 13 years later, which, again, did not last for long.

This is what is reported by Robert Zoller himself on the Project Hindsight webpage - in April 2007, where he states, "It has been thirteen years since I left Project Hindsight" (remember, he left in 1994).

It is worth reading what Zoller reports in 2007 about Schmidt’s earlier expertise being philosophical rather than astrological:

...his efforts to come to an understanding of practical Astrology have at last born fruit. When we first got to know one another, his interest in Astrology was mainly philosophical. He has now become an astrologer.

I mention this to close down criticisms that I was wrong to characterise Schmidt’s expertise as he entered the project that way myself.
http://www.projecthindsight.com/products/zoller.html

Orisis wrote:Yes lots of Wows and Greats out there from his crowd

Orisis, CB has 150,000 followers. When I speak out on issues like this it is so that our historical facts are not determined by whoever has the greatest social media influence.

5) Did I misrepresent the position of PH, because they never denied the existence of quadrant house division as I said they did?

I am aware of this suggestion through a Facebook post made by Moses Siregar, so to save time I'll quote from what has already been posted there.

Talking about a video response to my presentation made by Demetra George, he asked her for clarification on a point she had made in that:

Demetra:

“there was no point at which any of us, including Robert Schmidt and Robert Hand, denied that other house systems existed ... not only whole sign, but Equal and Porphyry were all grounded in the earliest of Hellenistic material.???

I’ll quote briefly the most salient comments from the opening post of Moses, and refer you to his full thread for more:

Moses:

This is not the way I remember the stance of Schmidt's strongest followers in the early aughts. I remember this very well because I literally used Porphyry houses starting in the early 90s and had clear and numerous disagreements with some of Schmidt's closest followers … in which they argued that Porphyry was used only for determining planetary strength while WSH were the only house system used for "topics." … Porphyry and Equal houses were never mentioned as being full-fledged house systems by these individuals who were strongly influenced by Schmidt, and I never heard Schmidt give much credit to Porphyry or Equal back then (he changed his stance somewhat, later, apparently)…
So with respect to Demetra, her comment does strike me as revisionist history. At minimum, I think it's a stretch to imply that the stance back then was that Porphyry and Equal were also regarded as full house systems, though it's really great to see them now being regarded potentially as such by proponents of Hellenistic astrology.

My initial addition to that thread was this:

… [from] my perspective as someone quite involved in the community at that time, the message coming through was loud clear, and argued strongly - whole sign for everything - and all aspects were not to be counted from planet to planet, but from the whole of one sign to the whole of another (no such thing as orbs). Eg, the introduction to Valens II instructs us (ignoring the fact that Valens has just explained the use and calculation of Porphyry house division in Book I), p.i:

"Whatever sign (*zoidion*) may be rising, 0° of that sign becomes the beginning of the first house. The original function of the Ascendant was not to establish the cusps of the houses, but rather the house meanings of the signs. The signs themselves were considered to be the houses, *topoi*, or places. There was no problem of house division at all".

(My underline)

Demetra then added:

While early followers of PH were enthusiastic about the idea of whole sign houses, not all the enthusiasts read all the texts that were being published. In 1996 Robert Schmidt had discussed the quadrant Porphyry system, and both Valens and Ptolemy’s passages on the equal house system in the introduction to Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos Book III, translated by Robert Schmidt and edited by Robert Hand.
So, I stand by my statement that Robert Schmidt and Robert Hand recognized the existence and publicly discussed all three house systems from the beginning of the project, or at least as soon as the relevant passages were translated.

To which I then added:

With respect, I will simply have to state that Demetra's recollection of events does not match my own - the text I gave earlier in the thread was not a memory but a quote published in the PH text of Valens II.I in 1994. It was very typical - there are more like that in other volumes, but I have that one readily to hand.

Hence you see the problem: by 1996 (when it became impossible to ignore the description of quadrant house systems, which were starting to emerge all over the place) Robert Schmidt then proposed a new theory that allowed a continuation of the 'ground-breaking' stance that PH had initiated with so much conviction and passion.

By this, WS remained the de facto method of obtaining house meanings, and quadrant houses were also employed, but only to tell us how strong the planet is, not what its house meaning is. Whatever anyone thinks of that theory - I know many astrologers nowadays like it and say it works well for them - the credit for the development of that theory belongs to Robert Schmidt. He was the one who proposed it and put that idea "out there".

What is more pertinent is that there is still a very loud, and very vocal claim being perpetuated that only signs were used to demarcate the houses in ancient astrology – this is still be rigorously asserted by some astrologers.

This suggestion that I misrepresented the PH position is an amusing example of the narrative being turned on its head, so that I can be labelled a “denialist??? – for arguing the need to stop denying that quadrant houses sytems were explained, used and recommended as fully fledged systems, even in our ancient sources.

Edited - adding in some graphics to illustrate exactly what my argument is about:

Hi everyone,

I created a video refuting Deborah Houlding's claim that ancient astrologers did not use whole sign houses. She actually said that no historical astrologer defined, discussed, recommended or said that he was using whole sign houses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM42S64PItk

I am not repeating the evidence that Chris Brennan showed, except briefly mentioning 2-3 aspects of it. I am providing additional evidence from various translated texts, as well as the only surviving horoscope of the Persian period - the electional chart for the coronation of their king.

Can you provide the relevant passage from the source text here, for easy reference and transparency? That would be very interesting.

I am looking for a quote from a primary source that shows an ancient astrologer explaining the use of the houses and telling us to define them by the sign boundaries (in the way that modern astrologers explain it) and recommending this as the way to do it.

That is what I said we have zero evidence of - I haven't suggested that no passages exist by which one might infer a practical use of whole sign. (Although even within many of those passages put forward on that basis, there is good reason to look again at the translation, or at how the intent of the astrologer has been translated; but that is not my argument here).

Deb said:

Can you provide the source text here for transparency? That would be very interesting.

Which source text do you mean? From the green book in Bulgarian or the Persian text?