Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi

Here are the comments of Anthony Louis as to why Placidus houses make more sense

To be honest I didn't understand him well. Too technical


https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2022/12 ... e-systems/

Placidus house cusps can suggest more accuracy than is actually the case for a horoscope if the birth time is an estimate.

Also, the problem of really skewed charts when casting horoscopes at high latitudes persists.

Regiomontanus is traditionally used by many horary astrologers.

Otherwise, Placidus is my default house system. Probably because it's the default system at Astrodienst where I prefer the legibility of their horoscope format.

I'm not disputing Louis's explanation of Placidus-- just saying that there can be additional considerations.

orsis

thanks for drawing my attention to anthony louis's article..

the whole issue of house systems is like an astrological quagmire for many.. an easy way around it is to just pick a system and ignore all the rationale for the basis for the particular system.. many astrologers do this.. they are much like sheep who will follow the lead of someone else, although i am sure they wouldn't like to be told this or have it framed this way..

who came up with the idea of houses? why 12? one can try to come up with a rational answer, but i think it is more complicated then many let on... well.. 12 signs - that is again an interesting conundrum... why 12? obviously we will be told of the merits of the number 12 or the symbolism implied in the number 12..

but i think one of the reasons anthony is attached to the concept of imposing time and space to come up with a particular house system that makes sense to him is based off his wanting to incorporate primary directions.. again - symbolism.. if at the moment of a persons birth - the birth chart, there is some special significance to this moment, then what of all the moments immediately afterwards? yes - transits answer this, but the symbolic idea of every approx 4 minutes, a different degree rising ought to have some great relevance, especially when a particular planet might be rising - say an hour or two after ones birth... different signs rise at different speeds, but the concept of primary directions - a very old astrological concept or form of symbolism continues on, especially since it was resurrected from the dead the past 20 or 30 years ago, thanks project hindsight and etc. etc. takes on greater significance and has to be somehow incorporated into the mix..

i could be wrong in my characterization of anthonys rational here, but i am saying what i think - subjectively.. its a rationalization for choosing a particular system over another.. here is some of mine down below..

most house systems are an attempt to merge two different axis.. the ascendant - descendant axis and the midheaven axis.. whole sign houses, or equal signs doesn't attempt to do this.. they put all the emphasis on the ascendant degree.. the beauty of this is the 12 signs retain their relationship with each other.. the problem with this is they ignore the midheaven axis, or it is only a smaller footnote inside this particular emphasis on the ascendant degree.. no one is getting rid of the time factor.. it is still space and time, but it is processed differently with a different emphasis on another part of the astro symbolism we have to work with..

regardless of my rambling - thanks for sharing the article. from time to time i have read anthony louis website and appreciate the fact he shares what he is thinking and working on..

I'm not commenting directly on the article, but in my own experience I've found that using whole sign houses + dynamic angles works the best. On the few occasions when I've met someone who thought that Placidus was the best I asked for their rationale and to look at their chart; inevitably I was always able to point out things that they had missed and/or mis-attributed to the Placidus house system. If I ever encounter a situation to the contrary, I will definitely pay attention. Anecdotally I've heard of this not being the case from astrologers that I respect, but I've personally never encountered a situation where Placidus yielded superior results.

I feel like a lot of the underlying mechanics behind astrology are intended to be abstract and not dependent on this kind of real world, mathematical certainty. I'm definitely in the Platonist, abstractionist school of astrology. If reality is actually based upon invisible forms, then symbolic adherence to those forms is what really matters, irrespective of physical considerations.

Don't like arguments over which system is best - never have.

If reality is actually based upon invisible forms, then symbolic adherence to those forms is what really matters, irrespective of physical considerations.

I do think this point is worth a nod though. My take is that quadrant systems connect more directly to the concepts of the symbolism being employed, but I recognise a level at which this applies too.

kubernetes wrote:I'm not commenting directly on the article, but in my own experience I've found that using whole sign houses + dynamic angles works the best. On the few occasions when I've met someone who thought that Placidus was the best I asked for their rationale and to look at their chart; inevitably I was always able to point out things that they had missed and/or mis-attributed to the Placidus house system. If I ever encounter a situation to the contrary, I will definitely pay attention. Anecdotally I've heard of this not being the case from astrologers that I respect, but I've personally never encountered a situation where Placidus yielded superior results.

I feel like a lot of the underlying mechanics behind astrology are intended to be abstract and not dependent on this kind of real world, mathematical certainty. I'm definitely in the Platonist, abstractionist school of astrology. If reality is actually based upon invisible forms, then symbolic adherence to those forms is what really matters, irrespective of physical considerations.

I am of a Platonic bent of mind too, which in this case translates to ASC-derived Equal Houses with the MC regarded as a sensitive point for me.

I agree that we don't need to revise astrology to make it conform to the technical details of astronomical observation pertinent more to the manifest world.

But of course, even if you choose to apply astrology from a Platonist perspective, the question remains what exactly you consider astrology's underlying "ideal form" to be.

There is a huge problem with the Placidus House system. It is explained in detail in this article - https://astro-school.org/placidus-bacics/

Shortly, it doesn't work at all at extreme northern latitudes.

Morinus argues, that the best house system, which gives the most accurate result in terms of prediction, is the Regiomontanus house system.

Hello James, in reaction to your "ramblings"...

james_m wrote:the whole issue of house systems is like an astrological quagmire for many..

I agree. And I think the cause of this confusion and difficulty is the lack of a common ground and a common language in the approach of explaining the house systems. Every astrologer has their own take on it and has their own opinions/rationale.

but i think one of the reasons anthony is attached to the concept of imposing time and space to come up with a particular house system that makes sense to him (...)

Also Anthony Louis has his personal preferences. He writes about them as if they are more generally true, but I can only see his argument as his personal opinion. He doesn't explain fully what kind of approach he takes in adopting these rationales.

most house systems are an attempt to merge two different axis.. the ascendant - descendant axis and the midheaven axis..

I think the root cause is that almost all house systems are an attempt to model the diurnal motion on the ecliptic. The diurnal motion or the apparent effects thereof always align with the celestial equator by necessity and are therefore always at odds with the ecliptic. This is the reason all house systems suffer in the arctic and antarctic one way or another.
Even the systems that are the most ecliptocentric like Whole-signs and Equal suffer because of the erratic behavior of the Ascendant point at extreme latitudes at particular times in the day.

Deb wrote:Don't like arguments over which system is best - never have.

Couldn't agree more.

What I would like to see is a way of describing house systems that shows clearly what the approach was in their inception; the reasons why they were invented in the first place. And then going from there describing their strengths and weaknesses.

There is no "best" system. But there might be a system most suited to the approach and philosophy of the astrologer.

markrusborn wrote:There is a huge problem with the Placidus House system. It is explained in detail in this article - https://astro-school.org/placidus-bacics/

Shortly, it doesn't work at all at extreme northern latitudes.

Hello Mark,

I know this argument well as I've seen it in many forms. The basic form is that at arctic latitudes the Placidus house division "looks" completely bonkers at certain times, which is undeniably true. Usually a chart is shown that lacks all intermediate house cusps. Then the conclusion is drawn that the system doesn't "work" anymore in these instances, or even that it must have broken down completely.

I want to argue that this doesn't clarify anything. And I want to go so far as to say that the Placidus houses is the only system that works perfectly and admirably in the arctic and antarctic, all the way up to the poles and 24 hours of sidereal time.

Let me explain:
The Placidus system is unique in the sense that it is the only quadrant system that doesn't rely on additional geometries for its construction, because it works with the division of time. All other quadrant systems need additional circles and what have you to make them work. The Placidus system only models the diurnal motion in relation to the local horizon.

A simple way of visualizing this is when you measure the time a particular celestial object is above the horizon and then set that off against the total time that same object will be above the horizon during that diurnal cycle. If the object is exactly half way between rising in the east and setting in the west, it wil be on the meridian. But you can also look when the object is 1/6, 1/3, 2/3 and 5/6 of the way from eastern to western horizon. You divide the diurnal arc of the object itself, or the apparent path in the sky due to the rotation of the earth.

This way of doing things reveals the approach of the Placidus system: that it is derived from the Primary Directions. The result of this approach is that the Placidus system always describes with 100% accuracy the mundane position of any point in the sky, but also that it is essentially totally agnostic about the ecliptic. To the Placidus system, the ecliptic is just a random set of celestial points. And for each of these points individually, a mundane position can be calculated.

Therefore, a planet's position in the Placidus houses perfectly describes its dynamic relation with the local horizon, even when it is sandwiched between two cusps of the 11th house, for example.

Coming back to my initial claim:
The Placidus system always perfectly describes the position of each point in the sky in the mundane system, therefore its dynamic relation with the local horizon.
This is the strength of the system, because it can do this for all 24 hours of sidereal time and at all latitudes from pole to pole.
However, the weakness of this system is its total indifference to the ecliptic and its geometries. This is also true at more moderate latitudes, where many astrologers happily use this system without a second thought.

But the ecliptic, of course, is always at an angle of about 23½ degrees to the celestial equator, so things do get really messed up on the ecliptic at times. From the point of view of the Placidus system this is the hazard astrologers take in insisting on the supremacy of the ecliptic.
But this also casts doubt on the validity of the Placidus intermediate cusps as determinators of the house lords.

Ruud66 wrote: What I would like to see is a way of describing house systems that shows clearly what the approach was in their inception; the reasons why they were invented in the first place. And then going from there describing their strengths and weaknesses.

I couldn't agree more. Many of these discussions suffer from a lack of historical perspective (specifically, intellectual history/history of ideas).

And I want to go so far as to say that the Placidus houses is the only system that works perfectly and admirably in the arctic and antarctic, all the way up to the poles and 24 hours of sidereal time. [...] Therefore, a planet's position in the Placidus houses perfectly describes its dynamic relation with the local horizon, even when it is sandwiched between two cusps of the 11th house, for example.

But I have to disagree with this, for the simple reason that planets, just like points on the ecliptic, become circumpolar at extreme latitudes. In other words, they never rise or never set, which makes the calculation of individual semi-arcs impossible.

Ruud66 wrote: And I want to go so far as to say that the Placidus houses is the only system that works perfectly and admirably in the arctic and antarctic, all the way up to the poles and 24 hours of sidereal time.

Like Mr. Gansten said, how can Placidus work in the Arctic, if it presupposes that the zodiac degree found on its house cusp either has passed or will pass through the local horizon?

As you certainly know, in the Polar zone you have a whole range of circumpolar degrees grouped around the solstitial axis (0° Cancer - 0° Capricorn) that can NEVER touch the horizon, either staying above or below it all the time.

For example, in Tromso/Norway the degrees from ca. 1° Gemini up to 29° Cancer will always stay above the horizon, those from 1° Sagittarius up to 29° Capricorn always below the horizon. You can only define Placidus house cusps if they do NOT fall into these circumpolar ranges.

The Placidus system is unique in the sense that it is the only quadrant system that doesn't rely on additional geometries for its construction, because it works with the division of time. All other quadrant systems need additional circles and what have you to make them work.

What about Porphyry houses? Much simpler than Placidus and also NOT invalidated by circumpolarity.

Only problem with Porphyry - as with all quadrant systems - is that it defines MC (culminating degree) = 10th cusp. Once the MC enters the never-rising range (1° Sag - 29° Cap in Tromso) and sinks below the horizon, houses 7-12 will be found below horizon which goes against their natural significations. The 10th house for example is supposed to be the top of the chart, so how can it be below the horizon?