DDonovanKinsolving wrote:PART 1.
Alan Leo's Casting the Horoscope contains lots of technical information about different house systems. I applied myself to them and learned of the Prime Vertical. On the Celestial Sphere, imagine the ring of the horizon, then add the ring of the meridian; they intersect at right angles. Now imagine a third ring at right angles to both of those. This third ring is the Prime Vertical. Being one to jump to conclusions, and later downgrade them to guesses or hypotheses, I thought of the Ecliptic-Prime Vertical intersection as a new set of angles. A few years afterwards, I learned that this was already well-trod territory, just not any that was readily in print during the brief time I had studied astrology up to then. Independently, I had discovered the Vertex.
I examined its behavior, especially through its mathematical and geometric symmetry with the Ascendant. At the Equator, the Ascendant moves all 360 degrees of the zodiac in one rotation of the Earth, while the Vertex/Antivertex is pinned at the equinoxes. Similarly, but conversely, at the poles the Vertex moves through all 360 degrees of the zodiac, while the Ascendant/Descendant is pegged at the equinoxes.
Well aware of the distorting effects upon the zodiac that geographic latuitude causes in many house systems, I wondered, Was there a consistent mathematical, geometrical way to define a point such that it coincides with the Ascendant at the Equator, with the Anti-Vertex at the Poles, and has intermediate values at latitudes in-between? And, was there a way to construct a house system around it? Alas, I lacked the ability to visualize this geometry.
A step closer to realizing this (for me, personally) came with the publication of Recent Advances in Natal Astrology: A Critical Review 1900-1976, by Dean and Mather. On pages 181-182, they mention the work of one Joseph Frederici. There, they mention a point Frederici calls the "Orient." Actually, Frederici came up with two distinct points he dubbed "Orient" but it's the second that got my attention. I recognized that Frederici had solved the problem that had stumped me. I was eager to pursue Mr. Frederici's work, if for no other reason than to bring closure to my own early speculation. The footnote to the Orient refers to a work in the NASO Journal "in press." To this day, I have been unable to discover whether it was actually published, and if so in which issue.
In recent years, with the advent of the internet and the easy resale of old items, I have been able to obtain back issues of magazines, and to make a tediously long story short, discovered that Joseph R. Frederici published a series of articles about domification in The Astrological Journal. Specifically, in the Autumn 1977 issue, Vol. XIX No. 4, pp. 167-175, Frederici presented the full mathematical specifications of this, his "Universal Domification System."
To be continued.
Q&A and discussion on Houses including house models and domification systems.
Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:27 pm
Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:27 am
SteveS wrote:Derek wrote:IMO, this is where much astrological knowledge/learning is concealed. Look forward to your continuation.In recent years, with the advent of the internet and the easy resale of old items, I have been able to obtain back issues of magazines…
Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:07 am
DDonovanKinsolving wrote:Part 2
In his culminating article The "Universal Domification System" Frederici asks us to imagine how astrology might have developed if it had originated in the far north instead of at lower latitudes. He notes that a hypothetical Hyperborean astrologer would have seen the planets a being near the horizon all the time, and this would not have been given much significance. More important would have been the passage of the planets through the Prime Vertical and the Meridian. He suggests that something like the Zenith house system would have been developed. As astrology moved south, in his scenario, astrologers would have encountered difficulties transposing the Zenith system to their new environs, ultimately having to recognize the importance of the Ascendant. (This is a very short and inadequate summary of his narration.)
Frederici then has an insight which I did not have, or if I did, forgot about. The Zenith system and Regiomontanus system are complementary systems, when Zenith is cast at the Poles, and Regiomontanus is cast at the Equator. With this, he goes on to construct his UDS. He states "...since the Zenith and Regiomontanus Systems are complementary, would it not be possible to find a general system of which the two be particular cases, fit for the extreme situations prevailing at the Pole and at the Equator? ... Reasoning along these lines I have devised a completely new House System which sums up all my work in this field up to date."
Though stated in different terms, Frederici pursued and solved the same question I'd pondered earlier.
Before going on to the technical formulas, let me pause here and give a brief bibliography and summary of the articles Joseph R. Frederici published in The Astrological Journal, insofar as I know of them.
Vol. XVI No. 3, Summer 1974
"The Lost Ascendant" Part 1
Frederici begins his exploration of the houses with two assumptions: 1. Houses are analogous to the signs structurally. Thus his inquiry begins with identifying which features of each are properly analogous. 2. A proper house system has to be applicable everywhere on Earth.
Vol. XVII No. 1, Winter 1974/75
"The Lost Ascendant" Part 2
Frederici continues his study in Part 1. Emphasis is on a comparison of several systems, by way of the principle "If a House System is not universally applicable - i.e. applicable to all places and all times - then it should be rejected."
Vol. XVII No. 3, Summer 1975
"The Lost Ascendant" Part 3
Frederici examines the characteristics of his "Lost Ascendant," his first "Orient" point.
Vol. XVII No. 4, Autumnr 1975
"The Meridian System of Houses"
A consideration of same, with thoughts on the difference between "cusps" (edges or boundaries) of houses and "apices" (peaks of strength) of houses.
Vol. XIX No. 4, Autumn 1977
"The 'Universal Domification System' "
The primary focus of my essay here.
Beyond this, I do not know anything of Mr. Frederici's work, nor of Mr. Frederici himself. He obviously put a lot of thought and care into the question of houses. I think his work deserves more attention than it has gotten (that is, almost completely lost and forgotten). Agree or disagree with his conclusions, his work is painstaking and done with care about the topic from a technical approach.
To be continued
Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:16 pm
Jim Eshelman wrote:Curious: In what ways are Regio and Zenith complementary? (Can you say more about that?)
There is a theoretical similarity in that each starts with equal division of the equator before dropping great circles differently. Is that what you mean?
In practice, Regio and Campanus are identical at the equator, so I suspect he is pushing a theoretical consideration.
Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:16 pm
Arena wrote:Very interesting. I have been interested in house systems for a long time since i live up there in polar latitude
But I would like to tell you that the meaning of the word cusp is not boarder originally. It means point, as in the sensitive point of each house and in whole sign house system the boarders were always at 0 and then the sensitive point of each house would be the asc degree of each house, if asc degree is 3 then the cusp or sensitive point within each house is at 3 but the boarder always at 0.
Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:07 pm
Jim Eshelman wrote:Yes, literally it means "point." Exactly right.Arena wrote:But I would like to tell you that the meaning of the word cusp is not boarder originally. It means point, as in the sensitive point of each house
However, that doesn't make things much easier, because it isn't really clear whether the "point" of a house was a boundary or a peak. I'm inclined to think it was a peak (apex), but it's not definitive.
That's certainly how some Hindu and eastern Mediterranean expressions have dealt with it at different points in time.and in whole sign house system the boarders were always at 0 and then the sensitive point of each house would be the asc degree of each house, if asc degree is 3 then the cusp or sensitive point within each house is at 3 but the boarder always at 0.
BTW, one thing to keep in mind, Arena, is that one can have houses without house cusps. Houses (by any method I can think of except one or two) are three-dimensional spatial areas, and planets can be (and are) in those 3D spaces even in polar areas where large patches of the zodiac are circumpolar and therefore can't be on any cusps. The solution is to take house placements directly from the Mundoscope, which shows the planet positions independent of cusps; and, in fact, that would be the correct way to assess Campanus house positions even in moderate latitudes.
Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:54 pm
Arena wrote:Jim, do you mean just casting a chart in mundo will show me the right house placement? I am not sure that it is accurate up here in polar, but i dont know. Can you show me how by posting a picture of what you mean?
I have long thought that the ancients might have been right about looking at cusps as just a sensitive point inside a whole sign house. That the constellation are not divided unequally in a chart by a house system.
Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:57 pm
Jim Eshelman wrote:Yes, that's what I mean and, yes, if the mundane calculation is matched to the house system you are using, it is accurate. For example, the Mundoscope - prime vertical longitudes - literally and exactly measures what the Campanus houses are.Arena wrote:Jim, do you mean just casting a chart in mundo will show me the right house placement? I am not sure that it is accurate up here in polar, but i dont know. Can you show me how by posting a picture of what you mean?
In person, I could show this to you on a sports ball or an orange in a couple of minutes.
Let me find a suitable example for you of a chart in extreme latitudes.
One very extreme example is on page 176 of the current edition of Sidereal Mundane Astrology. Take a look. It's the Caplunar ingress for the 2006 Reisadalen meteor impact. In the zodiac, the Ascendant and Midheaven are only 6° apart! You can't even draw Campanus house cusps (because parts of the zodiac are circumpolar), but the planets are naturally all in the three-dimensional spaces ("lunes") that constitute the real Campanus houses. The Mundoscope on the same page shows this.
Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:05 pm
Jim Eshelman wrote:The Canlunar (Moon's ingress into Sidereal Cancer) right before the Exxon Valdez accident occurred March 16, 1989, 19:44:41 AM YST, 60N50, 146W52. Here are the horoscope and Mundoscope for that chart for comparison.
[illustrations now lost; see Exxon Valdez discussion in Sidereal Mundane Astrology]
Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:25 pm
DDonovanKinsolving wrote:I believe what Frederici intended was something like this (and I hope that I'm saying it right): Take the grid lines of the Zenith system and drag them down to the Equator along the meridian, and that's equivalent to Regio. I think Campanus was not relevant to his thinking about this.Jim Eshelman wrote:Curious: In what ways are Regio and Zenith complementary?
Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:30 pm
DDonovanKinsolving wrote:Your situation is part of my motivation in presenting the UDS. I was sure it would be something you'd want to look at.Arena wrote:I have been interested in house systems for a long time since i live up there in polar latitude
I'm just passing along Frederici's usage. His use of apices (plural of apex) is one I've not seen elsewhere, granted.Arena wrote:But I would like to tell you that the meaning of the word cusp is not boarder originally. It means point, ...
Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:32 pm
Arena wrote:Ok i kind of get where you are going and have seen many charts i have casted myself up here... and that is essentially the reason that i became very interested in seeing a chart like my own with the asc ic in same sign and mc and dsc in opposite sign.
To me it seems right to look at "a north point" meaning the mc and then an "east point" being the actual east point and an actual real angle point. That would show the actual east point up here in the extremes ....and then we see another "east point" which is not really in east, but is another "extreme east" that is actually in south east direction for us up here in the extremes that can see the sky a bit differently.
Do you follow my thought process?
I am not sure how to say rhis in all the technical lingo, so i am trying to explain like i would to my child, in simple manner... not sure if it is too simple for you technicians
Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:37 pm
DDonovanKinsolving wrote:In general, I think this topic, the geometry of the various house systems, needs to use very high-resolution 3-D instructional graphics. Books and articles have traditionally presented drawings, but we need to enter the computer age. Astrologers would benefit immensely if this could be done.
Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:43 pm
Arena wrote:I am with this thought process trying to imagine when i am outside looking up to the sky and i look straight up to my north, that is where the mc should be at, so planets around that place in the sky would be somewhere at the top of my chart... then i could look 90 deg left from the true north point... and i would see planets around my east point, being a critical point in my chart... but i have a much bigger vision of the sky than you guys...so i will see a huge proportion of the sky that is not seen at your place on earth, therefore the other critical point in the chart, the asc which is not really to my east, but south east, so i say this again with my visualisation.
Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:44 pm
Jim Eshelman wrote:OK, let's see...DDonovanKinsolving wrote:I believe what Frederici intended was something like this (and I hope that I'm saying it right): Take the grid lines of the Zenith system and drag them down to the Equator along the meridian, and that's equivalent to Regio. I think Campanus was not relevant to his thinking about this.Jim Eshelman wrote:Curious: In what ways are Regio and Zenith complementary?
We can define Regiomontanus houses as lunes bounded by two adjacent great circles that are formed by dividing the celestial equator into equal 30° zones from the upper meridian, passing through these division points and the north and south points of the horizon. (It is identical to Campanus, except that, in Campanus, the Prime Vertical is used instead of the equator.)
We can define Zenith houses as lunes bounded by two adjacent great circles that are formed by dividing the celestial equator into equal 30° zones from the upper meridian, passing through these division points and the zenith and nadir.
OK, continuing... These two would be identical in that situation where the zenith and nadir are the same as the northpoint and southpoint of the horizon; but the zenith and nadir can never be on the horizon. OK, now I see what you meant by "complementary," since the circle of the horizon is that set of points on the celestial sphere which is most NOT the zenith or nadir, i.e., the farthest one can get from Z&N on the celestial sphere. At the geographic poles, the horizon circle is identical with the celestial equator that is being divided by both systems. At the geographic equator, the celestial equator is identical with the prime vertical and contains the zenith and nadir, so (I'd never thought this through before), even with the simplicity of the Zenith house system, it ceases to exist formally at geographic latitude 0°. (The only great circle passing through the zenith-nadir and any other division point on the celestial equator is actually the prime vertical.)
Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:54 pm
Arena wrote:Thank you for bringing this up with this topic... this is one of the reasons i have always been at odds with otherwise top knowledge experts on astrology that i do really respect, that they have kind of refused to see it from my actual point of view
So you see maybe why i chose to just look at it this way.
So i know i would see a much bigger portion of the sky and therefore i have sometimes tried to visualise it by having all equal signs, because they will still be there... and then drawing the asc line down to the leftto se of that circle... and the dsc line to the down right, down to the south west.
It would not be a straight line from left to right, but rather scewed downwards both ways.
Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:58 pm
DDonovanKinsolving wrote:Arena, there is a small body of technical literature in astrology which deals precisely with the sort of situations you describe. Mr. Frederici's articles are in that tradition. Robert Hand's Essays on Astrology contains a related chapter also. It's reflected in Solar Fire in a choice about whether you want MC to be the part of the zodiac due south, or the part that's above the horizon. The habits and expectations astrologers have developed as a result of its low-latitude origins, which cause mind-bending situations at high latitudes, are exactly what Frederici was seeking to address in his efforts.Arena wrote:I am not sure how to say [t]his in all the technical lingo, so i am trying to explain like i would to my child, in simple manner... not sure if it is too simple for you technicians
The cusp lines of the Campanus houses all converge at the horizon due north and south of any given location. As Mr. E. has alluded to, think of the sky as divided into sections just like an orange. This is why at your locale so many planets are often in the First, Twelfth, Sixth and Seventh houses. The planets often run so parallel to the horizon that they are in the other houses' small sections for brief periods of time. This doesn't make the Campanus system wrong, just uncomfortably unfamiliar - but that can be just prejudice.
Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:03 pm
DDonovanKinsolving wrote:I think I'm following you, Mr. E. Tentatively, I'll say that this is what Frederici had in mind.Jim Eshelman wrote:At the geographic poles, the horizon circle is identical with the celestial equator that is being divided by both systems. At the geographic equator, the celestial equator is identical with the prime vertical and contains the zenith and nadir
Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:07 pm
DDonovanKinsolving wrote:Sadly, there have been astrologers who, by their refusal to look at these issues, pretty much have said that astrology doesn't apply to to the Finns and Icelanders shouldn't take astrology seriously. OK, I'm putting words in their mouths, but that attitude always rankled me.Arena wrote:i have always been at odds with otherwise top knowledge experts on astrology that i do really respect, that they have kind of refused to see it from my actual point of view
Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:27 pm
Jim Eshelman wrote:Not exactly. (In fact, you have it backwards. The MC is always in the south, for all latitudes north of the tropics.)Arena wrote:I am with this thought process trying to imagine when i am outside looking up to the sky and i look straight up to my north, that is where the mc should be at
The meridian is a circle that passes due north-south, and also passes directly over your head and (on the other side of earth) directly beneath your feet. It includes both the MC and the IC. The actual point of the Midheaven is where this circle crosses the ecliptic, which will be somewhere between the southern horizon and straight overhead (as long as you are south of the Arctic Circle).
Or the bottom If it wraps too far around (especially in the north), it might be the IC you're seeing. But, generally, yes, that's true. (There is a complexity here based on whether we define the MC as that half of the meridian circle that is above the horizon, or that half that is in the south. Most of the time, these produce the same results, but sometimes they don't.)so planets around that place in the sky would be somewhere at the top of my chart
If you look along the curve from due north, directly over your head, and continuing around to due south, everything visually close to that will be very close to the Midheaven in a Campanus chart. Planets just a little on the western side of that curve will be high in the 9th house. Planets just a little on the eastern side will be high in the 10th house.
(Again, this is only true if you are facing south, not north.) If that 90° is walked along the horizon, then you are correct. However, most people are going to see that 90° from the overhead arching circle to be from directly over their head, reaching fan-like down to the horizon. The astrological Ascendant (if you are facing south) is the whole left half of your horizon, and the Descendant is the whole right half of your horizon.... then i could look 90 deg left from the true north point... and i would see planets around my east point, being a critical point in my chart
No, actually you don't. I'm very comfortable visualizing this from any spot on earth and any orientation of the sky.but i have a much bigger vision of the sky than you guys
You see a different part of the sky, but not more of it. We all have the same amount of sky visible to us.so i will see a huge priportion of the sky that is not seen at your place on earth
Really, the only big difference of your sky is that the planets don't climb so high in it.
It's the entire eastern half of the horizon - a semicircle. At 64N, the part of the equator that is due south is 26° above the horizon. The Sun at noon is as little as 3° above the horizon and never more than 49° above, with the other planets never far outside that zone. In contrast, where I live at 34N, the part of the equator that is due south is 56° above the horizon, and the Sun at noon is at least 33°, and sometimes as much as 79° above the horizon, and the other planets a bit more than that. There are times when the Moon, at high declination, is nearly overhead. That's different than you're used to seeing.therefore the other critical point in the chart, the asc which is not really to my east, but south east, so i say this thing again with my visualisation.
PS - Your wish (at the beginning of the letter) to "walk around the horizon" is a concept of azimuth. It's not what the houses are, or even the usual angles, because it's walking a "flat circle" that you're standing on. However, I thought I'd mention that if you'd like to explore an azimuth view of things, click the "Harmonic or Antiscia Chart" button and, instead of picking Z-Analogue Prime Vertical, pick Z-Analogue Azi. It will be a kind of inside-out Mundoscope using the horizon instead of the prime vertical for division. It's horizontal (1-7) line is the Vertex line.
Jan 08, 2015 7:13 pm
Arena wrote:No, it was just my wishful thinking that someday i might see a 3d video of this to understand better... and maybe our charts really are lacking the 3d perspective... it wasn't a request
By seeing and feeling we are capable of learning so much more than with words alone.
Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:25 pm
Arena wrote:And yes i apologise for -the mixup in the text from me... it came out wrong. Oflh course i need to look right for the east and left for the west when i am turned to the north.. was looking at the chart... and therefore need to turn it upside down for the mc to be at the right place
Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:37 pm
Jim Eshelman wrote:Yes, it so helps to see it. Once upon a time, I had the chance to borrow a celestial globe from a nearby school, and use it for teaching for a while. It made a lot of things clearer. I always see a horoscope in 3D, as a transparent globe.Arena wrote:No, it was just my wishful thinking that someday i might see a 3d video of this to understand better... and maybe our charts really are lacking the 3d perspective... it wasn't a request
By seeing and feeling we are capable of learning so much more than with words alone.
When we look at a horoscope, we are really staring as if we were far out in space looking back at the northpoint of the horizon. The great circles of the horizon and meridian, and the other four great circles that pass through the divisions of the Prime Vertical to form the Campanus house divisions, actually form the picture of the 12-sector circle we look at as a horoscope wheel.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest