Whole sign houses or Placidus ?

[Guest guest]

interesting article

this write-up from an interview by The Mountain Astrologer with astrologer Rob Hand:

 

 

http://www.lightworks.com/MonthlyAspectarian/2001/July/conversation.htm

 

.....TMA: It's real interesting to listen to astrologers argue about things. For instance, if I catch two astrologers arguing about house cusp systems, I take them outside and point at the sky and say, "Show me lines."

 

RH: I have an interesting answer to that. In our work in Greek astrology at Project Hindsight, we made a rather interesting discovery. All of the Greeks did houses in the same way that the Hindus do, which is whole sign houses. What they did was, they counted the rising signs. Not the degree, the sign. So the first house was the rising sign, the second house was in exile, and so forth. So the houses were actually functions performed by the signs of the zodiac. Now we call these whole sign houses. I've actually switched to it because I've found that it gives a more objectively accurate description of the life. The circumstances of the life show up much more clearly.

The main reason we thought it was a good idea to switch is that it worked better. But a theoretical reason was when we discovered how modern houses came into existence. The idea of trisecting the arc between the ascendant and the midheaven was used fairly early, by the second century at the very latest. But it was used only to determine whether a planet was strong, medium or weak or angular, succeedent or cadent. It was not used to tell what the planet signified. Nobody among the Greeks used it for this purpose. They used the modern type houses, mainly Porphyry and later on, Alcabitius, only for determining strength. They would use the signs for telling what the planet signified.

The one that first we thought was an exception, apparently is the exception, was due to a mistranslation. Now the problem is, there's a passage in Ptolemy where he tells you how to calculate the planet that is later called the Giver of Life. As he describes it, it sounds like he's describing equal houses. The problem is, he isn't describing houses, he's talking about places where you can find this planet. There's a particularly critical passage where the whole thing depends on a couple of two-letter words in Greek, and the manuscripts differ on which ones they are. So at that point, we don't know what he actually said. To make matters worse, people looked at this and said, "Well, it shouldn't be done this way, it should be done this way" and began tinkering with houses. But again, not for signification. It wasn't until the Arabs that we find modern-type houses used for signification. By that time, the house cusp controversy was on full

blast....

Discover Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing more. Check it out!

[Guest guest]

Dear Iver,

 

It is really a very interesting article. Thank

you for sharing it.

 

Best wishes,

 

Jorge

 

 

SAMVA

[sAMVA ] On Behalf Of del

iver

quinta-feira, 19 de Maio de

2005 11:57

samva

Whole sign houses

or Placidus ?

 

 

interesting

article

 

 

this write-up from an

interview by The Mountain Astrologer with astrologer Rob Hand:

 

 

 

 

http://www.lightworks.com/MonthlyAspectarian/2001/July/conversation.htm

 

 

 

 

 

.....TMA: It's real interesting to listen to astrologers argue

about things. For instance, if I catch two astrologers arguing about house cusp

systems, I take them outside and point at the sky and say, " Show me

lines. "

 

 

RH: I have an

interesting answer to that. In our work in Greek astrology at Project

Hindsight, we made a rather interesting discovery. All of the Greeks did houses

in the same way that the Hindus do, which is whole sign houses.

What they did was, they counted the rising signs. Not the degree, the sign. So

the first house was the rising sign, the second house was in exile, and so

forth. So the houses were actually functions performed by the signs of the

zodiac. Now we call these whole sign houses. I've actually switched to it because I've found that

it gives a more objectively accurate description of the life. The circumstances

of the life show up much more clearly.

The main reason we thought it was a good idea to

switch is that it worked better. But a theoretical reason was when we

discovered how modern houses came into existence. The idea of trisecting the

arc between the ascendant and the midheaven was used fairly early, by the

second century at the very latest. But it was used only to determine whether a

planet was strong, medium or weak or angular, succeedent or cadent. It was not

used to tell what the planet signified. Nobody among the Greeks used it for

this purpose. They used the modern type houses, mainly Porphyry and later on,

Alcabitius, only for determining strength. They would use the signs for telling

what the planet signified.

The one that first we thought was an exception,

apparently is the exception, was due to a mistranslation. Now the problem is,

there's a passage in Ptolemy where he tells you how to calculate the planet

that is later called the Giver of Life. As he describes it, it sounds like he's

describing equal houses. The problem is, he isn't describing houses, he's

talking about places where you can find this planet. There's a particularly

critical passage where the whole thing depends on a couple of two-letter words

in Greek, and the manuscripts differ on which ones they are. So at that point,

we don't know what he actually said. To make matters worse, people looked at

this and said, " Well, it shouldn't be done this way, it should be done

this way " and began tinkering with houses. But again, not for

signification. It wasn't until the Arabs that we find modern-type houses used

for signification. By that time, the house cusp controversy was on full

blast....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discover

Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing & more. Check

it out!