When I first commenced my astrological studies way back in 1987 and even later during formal education, I was somewhat perplexed as to the existence of numerous and competing house systems. This seemed rather odd. After all, astrologers with the exception of siderealists seemed quite united on the concept of using a fixed tropical zodiac and yet there was no uniformity of approach when it came to the area of house division.
Having been schooled in the traditional concepts of astrology I experimented with a number of systems to see which house division method fitted best according to my own understanding. This was not an easy approach and only served to further confuse the issue. In fact I would say that I spent the better part of at least 3 years trying to make sense of the controversy when time could have been expended on more useful pursuits.
The confusion did, however, serve a purpose. If it taught me anything it was that astrologers seem to have inherited a great deal of received wisdom which does not always hold up to practical experience.
I will elucidate this statement further by looking at one particular theory which has enjoyed some following in the United Kingdom and which may still be taught as standard to students of astrology. This is the concept of the so-called Equal House system.
As any astrologer will know, the Equal House system is one of the few methods of house division where the Midheaven does not form the cusp of the 10th house which is instead substituted by the nonagesimal or highest point of the ecliptic, exactly 90° to the Ascending degree. The first house begins at the Ascendant and all 12 houses are marked off in 30° divisions from thereon.
The system appears to have gained favour with astrologers who, on aesthetic grounds, objected to how quadrant house cusps appear when drawn onto 360° chart forms, citing arguments relating to intercepted signs and especially for high latitude births the distorted size of houses. This is particularly true for charts when the birth occurs in locations higher than 50° North/South, not to mention the difficulties encountered in polar regions.
Needless to say the Equal House system deserves some examination because it underlies certain false concepts which still dominate astrology today.
The problem has to do fundamentally with how astrologers, and especially students, conceive of houses - not in terms of meaning but the basis of how they are constructed.
Let me begin by stating that contrary to popular understanding, houses are not divisions of the zodiacal circle.
Houses fundamentally belong to another plane of reference co-existing with the tropical zodiac and it is this which seems to have caused a great deal of confusion.
The "plane of reference" in question is that of the 24 hour diurnal cycle of the planets and ecliptic in regards to the observer's horizon, and house systems are basically ways of finding a way to create a twelvefold division, in a similar way to the tropical zodiac, which can then be projected onto the ecliptic to form cusps. This is necessary because when working in the tropical zodiac we have to know if a given house system works - that is, we need to know if its cusp or projection point is sensitive to factors such as progressions, transits etc.
The ecliptic then is a way of knowing where houses are in relation to the planets. If for example we construct a Placidus chart which has an 11th house cusp of say 9° Scorpio we say that the 11th house begins at that point. It may be more accurate to say that 9°SC in the ecliptic is that point which interfaces with the time division according to the Placidus method.
Yet despite this it seems that the so-called Equal House method is still touted as a house system, when in fact it is not. It makes no reference to any plane other than the ecliptic, which is already divided into equal segments commencing from the Aries (Vernal) Point. It disregards the Midheaven as the cusp of the 10th House yet for some strange reason retains the Ascendant as the cusp of the 1st House.
The Margaret Hone books published in the 1950s did much to promote the erroneous idea that houses should all be of equal size. I believe the reason for this is that astrologers in Britain, certainly before the advent of computers, were accustomed to drawing charts on 360° forms which lent themselves to an aesthetic, "clean cut" presentation in terms of house division especially when using the "Equal House" method. These forms were in contrast to the continental type charts where the zodiacal degrees/minutes of house cusps are written on the outer edge of equally sized segments, but these were not particularly easy to use for the drawing in and inspection of planetary aspects.
For this reason I believe that students of astrology would be well advised to draw up 2 types of charts: one 360° chart without house cusps but including aspects, and a continental type form emphasizing the twelvefold nature of the diurnal circle.
The choice of house system is of course a related, and highly contentious matter. I hope to go into further detail about this in future postings
Saturday, 23 July 2011
Friday, 22 July 2011
Introductory Post
This is my first posting to the blog site Astrology Forwards and will hopefully give a preview to my concerns about astrology, how it stands today, and where it is headed.
I first began studying astrology at the age of 17 and a few years later went on to complete basic and diploma studies. It is easy to assume that having read a few books and even attaining a diploma that one knows all there is to know. Not so.
Astrology is a subject that to me can only be learned through observation. You can be instructed in calculation, theory and application but the real knowledge comes from within despite how many classes you attend, books read or courses taken. It was my experience that I learned far more about astrology when I departed from my traditional education and started to look closely at what was happening in my life and how this correlated to specific "measurements". My bibles are and continue to remain Ebertin Reinhold's Combination of Stellar Influences and Horoscope Symbols by Robert Hand. These still assume an important presence on my bookshelf.
It was in my late 20s, post formal training, that I discovered just how limiting in scope traditional Western astrology is. This view was further reinforced when I came across the writings of Eleanora Kimmel in Cosmobiology for the 21st Century which to my mind is not only an excellent work on midpoint theory and application, but also sets out in its first chapter the extent to which the conventionally accepted methods which underpin astrology are based upon unproven theories - namely the tropical zodiac, rulerships, house division etc.
Despite this I am not one to completely throw the baby out with the bath water. For one I concede that there is a basis for having a tropical zodiac and a system of 12 houses. On the latter subject I am concerned that astrologers have not reached a consensus over the house division question and that perhaps the influence of houses, as they are popularly understood, has been overstated. I hope to write more about this in future postings.
I first began studying astrology at the age of 17 and a few years later went on to complete basic and diploma studies. It is easy to assume that having read a few books and even attaining a diploma that one knows all there is to know. Not so.
Astrology is a subject that to me can only be learned through observation. You can be instructed in calculation, theory and application but the real knowledge comes from within despite how many classes you attend, books read or courses taken. It was my experience that I learned far more about astrology when I departed from my traditional education and started to look closely at what was happening in my life and how this correlated to specific "measurements". My bibles are and continue to remain Ebertin Reinhold's Combination of Stellar Influences and Horoscope Symbols by Robert Hand. These still assume an important presence on my bookshelf.
It was in my late 20s, post formal training, that I discovered just how limiting in scope traditional Western astrology is. This view was further reinforced when I came across the writings of Eleanora Kimmel in Cosmobiology for the 21st Century which to my mind is not only an excellent work on midpoint theory and application, but also sets out in its first chapter the extent to which the conventionally accepted methods which underpin astrology are based upon unproven theories - namely the tropical zodiac, rulerships, house division etc.
Despite this I am not one to completely throw the baby out with the bath water. For one I concede that there is a basis for having a tropical zodiac and a system of 12 houses. On the latter subject I am concerned that astrologers have not reached a consensus over the house division question and that perhaps the influence of houses, as they are popularly understood, has been overstated. I hope to write more about this in future postings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)