Hello james_m

Re: "james do you think the idea of the division of the circle into 12 houses is a philosophical decision, or one based on something more tangible, like the making of a bar in a metal shop?"

I would say (ie. my humble opinion on the matter is) that it is some of both. 12 months in a year... 12 disciples... etc. The number 12 obviously has certain "significances" in the real world. That being said, I think it's completely observable that yes, indeed, there are 12 distinct houses in terms of a connection between astrology and "areas of life." There may be more to it with the idea of 12 Houses, but there most certainly is not "less" to it.

Re: "james, do you think your observations are more valid then others observations?"

Not at all, though they are more believable initially, since I've seen it with my own eyes. In this case, House systems comparisons, I haven't witnessed anyone else doing an intensive study. Anyone approaching this from a delineating stance instead of an event <----> astrology stance, might as well be playing darts in a pitch dark room. For something involving a system of measurement, it is best to stick to more objective approaches as the subjective ones can be misleading. Do you think someone gets a better view of a planet by looking through a high-powered telescope than by looking at a grainy photo in a newspaper?

Re: "...is the idea of '12 houses' a theory or a reality?"

Reality. The "activity" of the 12 Houses can be observed. We wouldn't see such reliable and tight aspects to relevant house cusps at events (when looking at Primary Directions and Secondary Progressions) if there wasn't something fundamentally true about the 12 House divisions.

Re: "...james does astrology have any philosophical or abstract principle, or is astrology all very tangible like a physical object where you'd be able to 'measure' it in a fully objective way?"

Again, it appears to be both. There are both philosophical implications as well as certain abstract ideas connected with it to be sure. However, if these don't stand up to scrutiny in the real world, then they have no value beyond the abstract. If Morin states that certain directions will exist at death and we find many cases of death without those directions, then the initial premise has to be incorrect.

When I look at these things, I often attempt to often understand the statistical ramifications, the probabilities. We have to ever be vigilant as to what is really a statement and as to what is ultimately indistinguishable from coincidence. In astrology, this brings in necessarily the concept of orbs, since too large of orbs ENSURES that we can find proper symbolism in hindsight ALWAYS. The more stringent those orbs are, the drastically lower that these line-ups could be happening simply as coincidence and this is obvious when we stop to consider the probabilities.

As an example, let's look at one event and really think about it for a second. What are the chances (not looking for specific numbers, just an appreciation of the magnitude) that at the ONE TIME IN MY LIFE that my Ascendant directed to conjoin my natal Venus would be the exact same timing that I get married to the love of my life? Here, we have a marriage (pun intended) of both the philosophical (ie. that the Ascendant relates to me and that Venus could be considered to relate to "the female love of my life") as well as the observable. (ie. that the (measurable) one time the aspect became partile is exactly the same time the symbolically-related event transpired) Now, if we multiply this very small probability by the probabilities of the other line-ups that occur across my entire event list, we arrive at a number so small that it can be considered infinitesimal. ie. winning two state lotteries simultaneously would be more expected than the astrological line-up to be coincidental

Because of this mathematical reality, when trying to determine the location of intermediate cusps it makes a thousand times more sense to do this using dynamic time systems (the objective) rather than some delineation approach (very subjective).

If I say "look, across my entire event list, the relevant aspects are occuring with the correct house cusps and to just scant minutes of arc", we have made a mathematical statement of worth because the probabilities are too low for this to be able to happen by coincidence. On the other hand compare that to the statement "my Saturn can't be in the 2nd House because I don't like antiques." It's literally the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. (not because I say so, but because of the math and the specificity)

Or, think of it this way... consider flipping a coin. If we flip it just once (ie. relating to finding ONE correspondence of symbolically correct aspect happening right with the event) we have a 50% probability of heads and the same for tails. When we are considering entire lists of events, we have a group of mutually exclusive confirmations and therefore the individual probabilities are multiplied to arrive at the cumulative probability. In our coin-flipping example, what was a 50% chance since we were talking about getting "Heads" once...now becomes a 0.976% chance if we're insisting on there being 10 Heads in a row. ie. (0.5 ^10 OR .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5)

My proposed way to establish the location of the intermediate house cusps would be to take a well-timed chart and look at the Secondary Progressions at events across the entire event list and only consider the symbolically relevant ones relative to house cusps. Simply do this with each house system. The house system that (repeatedly) gives the tightest orbs is the one that is most correct. (We still haven't established it's 100% correct, we've merely proven that it outperforms the others under consideration) The fact that Primary Directions and Secondary Progressions tend to mature (with associated events) with orbs less than 0? 11' establishes their location with at least that accuracy. (It's technically higher, since we have an entire list of events)

Were I not of an open mind, I would have never open-mindedly considered the evidence and therefore never have been in a position to switch to Topocentric Houses. I'm not asking others to switch, but I am asking merely that they have an open mind.

Peace

James

Atlantean wrote: As an example, let's look at one event and really think about it for a second. What are the chances (not looking for specific numbers, just an appreciation of the magnitude) that at the ONE TIME IN MY LIFE that my Ascendant directed to conjoin my natal Venus would be the exact same timing that I get married to the love of my life? Here, we have a marriage (pun intended) of both the philosophical (ie. that the Ascendant relates to me and that Venus could be considered to relate to "the female love of my life") as well as the observable. (ie. that the (measurable) one time the aspect became partile is exactly the same time the symbolically-related event transpired)

Can I ask, is this measured a specific way? so many variables... is the measure in RA using the declination of the AS to a placidean arc, or great circle(if so, passing through what other point) through venus. Or measured using the declination of mundane venus or zodiacal venus to the horizon. Once measured, what key is used to convert to an age.

Good morning,

It would be interesting and useful to know precisely which testing methods Mr Atlantean applied:

"... Topocentric gave the tightest orbs of all of the house systems that I tested. As it was demonstrably proficient, I adopted Topocentric."

Were they within the framework of 'anecdotal evidence' applied by the vast majority of astrological authors ancient and modern or would they stand up to scrutiny by persons duly qualified in mathematical statistics?

Best regards,

lihin

james,

thanks for your response. it appears you're more open to the idea of ""12"" houses being something of a concept as opposed to a physical object that can be measured with a measuring device.

i note in the example of your commentary that Ariondys highlights the additional issue of what particular measurements one decides to use have great bearing on any conclusions. also i would like to point out that no one seems to dispute the angles - ascendant and midheaven axis (- which you use in this example) but instead are more conflicted on the way of merging the two axis which is the basis for many of the house systems, excluding just 3 - whole sign houses, equal houses and a house system that divides equally off the midheaven angle, which i rarely see anyone use.

another topic that i think has relevance to this issue of house cusps is midpoints. it is my personal viewpoint that if one doesn't bother to work with midpoints it is more difficult to see any number of turning points that can happen in a persons life as i don't think they are all gotten off just a particular house system that one opts for or concludes (rightly or wrongly) is the most accurate one. thanks again for your comments.

Good evening,

Unless i have overlooked something, it appears that the concurrently, complementary use of two different house systems for topical interpretation, for example Whole Signs and Alchabitius by Mr Robert Zoller, who had applied the Placidus system in his early book on Arabic Parts, has not yet been discussed in this thread.

This approach is different from the use, ex. gr. in some schools of Hellenistic astrology, to use Whole Signs for topical interpretation, a quadrant system like Porphyry to assess the planets' inclinations to be active.

The use of any topical place system at all, for example the Birth-Place-Houses (German GOH: Geburtsort-H?user) of Dr. Walter Koch, in the 20th century Aalener School (also known as cosmobiology) of Herr Reinhold Ebertin is an innovation propagated by some of his students including his son Dr. Baldur Ebertin. Reinhold Ebertin clearly wrote against house systems and used 'general significations' of the planets together with their midpoint configurations for topical analyses. In my humble opinion this avoidance of a 'house system' altogether is one of the salient positive components of the Aalener School's approach, as it significantly simplifies, concentrates and accelerates astrologers' work.

House systems were very thoroughly and controversially discussed for example in German astrological journals during the 1930s.

Best regards,

lihin

Hello Ariondys,

Sorry for the delay in answering...

Re: "Can I ask, is this measured a specific way? so many variables... is the measure in RA using the declination of the AS to a placidean arc, or great circle(if so, passing through what other point) through venus. Or measured using the declination of mundane venus or zodiacal venus to the horizon. Once measured, what key is used to convert to an age."

I really use these Primary Directions strictly through software designed particularly for that purpose. In other words, I have not researched the math nor the philosophical nor astronomical underpinnings of the methodology. I believe that if you will research the methods of Carl K?hr and (later) Alexander Marr, that you will have all of those questions answered. [Carl K?hr method, but with Topocentric Houses...that is the key element]

Isaac Starkman did the programming necessary (for his Polaris program), so I am sure that he could likely answer any of these questions on the actual math involved.

Take care

James

Hello lihin,

Re: "Were they within the framework of 'anecdotal evidence' applied by the vast majority of astrological authors ancient and modern or would they stand up to scrutiny by persons duly qualified in mathematical statistics?"

It was a very simple (though a bit time-consuming) process of checking the Topocentric Houses and determining the orb and then surveying if any other house systems made for smaller orbs for the intermediate houses. In not one single case of those examined (19 persons with surveys across their event lists...normally between 15 and 25 dated events), was the average orb made smaller by using a different house system...and in most cases, the very obvious planetary aspect that appears to define the event (for example Mars conjoining 3rd cusp for birth of Brother or Moon conjoining 8th cusp for death of Grandmother) would completely disappear from the aspect list. (because the Primary Directions are already KNOWN to act within the 0? 11' previously discussed, so no aspects are analyzed beyond that orb, since it is completely unnecessary... ie. they've already failed in the comparison by the excessive orb)

Take care,

James

Hello james_m

Re: "thanks for your response. it appears you're more open to the idea of ""12"" houses being something of a concept as opposed to a physical object that can be measured with a measuring device."

As I tried (perhaps failing in my attempt) to outline in a previous post, to me, it is basically 50-50. There is an obvious philosophical connection by the definitions of those houses and their generally accepted use in Astrology. There is also a definable element, since across entire event lists, the cusps are confirmed through relevant primary directions and secondary progressions.

Re: "i note in the example of your commentary that Ariondys highlights the additional issue of what particular measurements one decides to use have great bearing on any conclusions."

In what way do you mean that? The astrological symbolism is rich with meaning. Whichever system we are using, we should have integrity with the meanings and the corresponding events (otherwise that system is NOT reliable). In other words, if our event is "death of a close friend" and we see Saturn conjoining the 11th cusp by Primary Direction, the symbolism is obvious. If we have to find some obtuse routing to find it... ie. the ruler of his 11th House conjoined Saturn, ruling his 8th...then there is a much higher fudge-ability factor brought in. I try to stick to inherent symbolism.

Re: "also i would like to point out that no one seems to dispute the angles"

Because it is so obvious. In (basically) all of the quadrant systems, the Angles are found to be the same, no matter which particular house system is being used. The difference comes in the intermediate cusps and those are the very ones that are reliably activated beyond possible coincidence in Primary Directions and Secondary Progressions at events. This is the ground for my adherence to Topocentric Houses.

Re: "another topic that i think has relevance to this issue of house cusps is midpoints. it is my personal viewpoint that if one doesn't bother to work with midpoints it is more difficult to see any number of turning points that can happen in a persons life as i don't think they are all gotten off just a particular house system that one opts for or concludes (rightly or wrongly) is the most accurate one."

Was there any commentary made that suggested that a particular house system made midpoints obsolete? To me, they are relatively mutually exclusive. I put great faith in midpoints, though I often insist upon much smaller orbs than most of my contemporaries. For the reasons for this, please read Alexander Marr's article, "How Exact Must We Be?"

Re: "thanks again for your comments"

You're more than welcome...thanks for taking the time to digest them as I sometimes am verbose.

Take care

James

Hello lihin,

Re: "House systems were very thoroughly and controversially discussed for example in German astrological journals during the 1930s."

Topocentric came about in the 60's. The previous analysis is, by definition, incomplete. They are discussing the other House systems, which can only feature each system's performance as measured with what was available at that time.

I'm all for rejuvenating those discussions (the main elements of them) and revising them with all that we have learned since then.

Take care

James

Good morning,

Reference is made to Mr Atlantean's recent post on his testing methods in favour of the Topocentric system of topical places.

Although any testing endeavours that go beyond "it works on my chart" are in my humble opinion laudable and i am not a professional mathematician, it seems to me that the applied methods as described by Mr Atlantean would clearly be considered 'anecdotal evidence'.

Some items to consider in statistical test design:

• 1. all assumed premises, ex. gr. zodiac, meanings of houses, meanings of planets, selection of planets and points, directional systems and their calculations, one-to-one attributions of planetary and point combinations to specific types of event, must be stated in writing in advance, thus limiting the undefined variable to topical house system;
  
  2. sufficient accuracy, generally within four minutes of time, of both nativities and events;
  
  3. possible independent verification of both nativities and events, id est publication of all underlying data and their sources;
  
  4. statistically sufficient numbers of nativities and events to draw from;
  
  5. random selections of nativities and events from lists;
  
  6. findings must be reproducible with other random data sets and the same underlying assumptions.

One of the difficulties comes to mind: astrologers are very seldom in agreement on the underlying assumptions for an astrological system. Each change in such assumptions would imply new rigorous testing.

Best regards,

lihin

Hello lihin,

Please, Atlantean, not Mr. Atlantean...

Re: "Although any testing endeavors that go beyond "it works on my chart" are in my humble opinion laudable and i am not a professional mathematician, it seems to me that the applied methods as described by Mr Atlantean would clearly be considered 'anecdotal evidence'."

I have nothing to add to that statement... it is true as is. The continuous, reliable lining up of relevant astrological aspects to just minutes of arc with relevant house cusps appears to you to be anecdotal evidence. I am sure that is your belief, so what is there to discuss on that point? We both agree that it's your belief.

I attended college on a mathematical scholarship, so perhaps our perspectives are quite different.

In the attempt to prove anything, we must take into account the probability that the examined circumstance could be coincidental. Let's take a quick example... of flipping a coin, since we all can relate to it and the probabilities are easier to see since there are only two possible outcomes. Obviously, the chances of a specific outcome (heads or tails) in flipping a coin is 50%. Now, if someone says, I can flip a coin and make it land any way that I want and they flip the coin ONCE and are right, they've really only "defeated" 50% odds against his being right. Anyone witnessing this would likely say, "so what?!" Now, if he instead called 10 heads to be followed by 10 tails and accomplished it, EVERYONE would say, "WOW" (after examining the coin) Why? Because of the odds that were defeated in the repetitive display. In this case, we have 0.5 ^ 20 = 0.0000954% likelihood of success. (or a 99.9999% chance against)

THIS is exactly my reasoning in the House System analysis.

Let's take into account the very narrow orb that I am discussing (always less than 0? 11'). If we divide a circle by 0? 11', we see that there are (approx) 1963 of those "slices." In terms of the conjunctions (only), that means that for my Primary Directed Ascendant to land in the same slice as my natal Venus (at the exact date I got married), it has defeated 1/1963 odds (or 0.051% chance of success / 99.949% chance of failure). [Yes, I realize that other symbolism can define the event (my first marriage was symbolized by Asc conjunct Node), however, for this particular line-up, the probabilities are representative as relative the (Directed) Ascendant and Venus in isolation...] For a relevant conjunction to a house cusp, the probabilities are identical, in this example.

Re: "1. all assumed premises, ex. gr. zodiac, meanings of houses, meanings of planets, selection of planets and points, directional systems and their calculations, one-to-one attributions of planetary and point combinations to specific types of event, must be stated in writing in advance, thus limiting the undefined variable to topical house system;"

Most on here have at least moderate experience in standard astrology. In other words, on some level this is kindergarten requirements imposed on post-graduates.

Re: "2. sufficient accuracy, generally within four minutes of time, of both nativities and events;"

You'll need a LOT tighter than 4 minute accuracy if you plan to survey Primary Directions. As someone who has worked extensively with Primary Directions, I can state clearly that the birthtime will need to be accurate to within seconds and that the event date doesn't need any more precision than the date, since the factors are moving so slowly that 12 hours of time is completely inconsequential...

Re: "3. possible independent verification of both nativities and events, id est publication of all underlying data and their sources;"

Normally, printed approximations of birthtime are not sufficiently defined in order to use Primary Directions NOR to give any reliable location for even the angles, until properly verified. [Rodden rating "AA" means there is a specific birth document, it says nothing as to that document's actual accuracy. How could it?!!!]

Re: "4. statistically sufficient numbers of nativities and events to draw from;"

Because of the calculations involved in the actual probability and statistics of each event relative to the astrological factors, this "statistically sufficient number" that you reference is much smaller than would normally be guesstimated.

Re: "5. random selections of nativities and events from lists;"

Use sequential nativities and entire event lists...

Re: "6. findings must be reproducible with other random data sets and the same underlying assumptions."

So far, these results have been reproduced in every subsequent chart analyzed.

Re: "One of the difficulties comes to mind: astrologers are very seldom in agreement on the underlying assumptions for an astrological system. Each change in such assumptions would imply new rigorous testing."

I agree completely with the idea of testing. Many of the ideas (stated above) seem too stringent in that they imply a general stupidity on the part of the examiners, which I don't think actually applies. ie. If a person has "Birth of Brother" and in Primary Directions Mars is exactly conjunct the 3rd House, anyone who says "I can't see how the astrology is relevant to the event" is an IDIOT. If we're talking about "Brothers" does one really have to pre-state the "3rd House"? If we're talking about "Overseas Travel" does one really have to pre-state the "9th House"? Are your points representing "astrologers" or "skeptics that have never read an astrology book"???

So that I can wrap my mind around your particular perspective, I want to list some events (from my Wife's chart) and the relevant aspects (Primary Directions). If you would just tell me (from the list below) any one's that the event and the astrology don't match (from your perspective).... THANKS.

Wife travels overseas to be exchange student: Asc --> Jupiter (0? 8' orb)

Beginning sexual relationship: 5th --> Mars (0? 9' orb)

Separation in above relationship: 5th --> Uranus (0? 8' orb)

Broken back: Asc --> Pluto (0? 11' orb)

Meet future Husband (me, Astrologer): Uranus --> Asc (0? 2' orb)

Sudden move to U.S.: Uranus --> IC (0? 4' orb)

Death of Grandmother: IC --> Saturn (0? 0' orb)

Financial loss: Mars --> 2nd (0? 4' orb)

Birth of Daughter: Uranus --> 5th (0? 1' orb)

...this gives a cumulative orb of 0? 47' for NINE aspects or an average orb of 0? 5' per aspect.


Take care

James

lihin wrote:

Some items to consider in statistical test design:


l

In the 'real world' if an Astrologer wanted to prove, or know, their Horoscopic notions had a relationship to life on it they would need to show this world that they can find the right data, tob/dob/pob, from a randomly generated sample.

After a few weeks or months, under controlled conditons, they and we would probably have an answer.

Your ''test design''might be a way of operationalising the above, but I'm not sure it is ?