posted October 07, 2007 06:27 PM            

Porphyry? I like it too. Planets in close proximity to the angles seem to be in the proper House.

posted October 09, 2007 07:08 AM            

I was hoping people would offer their opinions on the house systems also. I know it is an age-old topic and been covered many times, but it is essentially core astrology, and not enough questions are asked of it.

I guess one of my biggest questions about the house system is in respect to the systems that do not use equal 30 degree segments (The Equal House system). The Zodiac in 'real space' terms uses exact 30 degree separations to distiniguish the twelve signs. Yet some house systems regulate the distribution of the 360 degrees in terms of the position relative to the ecliptic at the place of birth. Most of the houses systems that propose this unequal distribution of house zones are relatively new to Astrology, as it has tried to evolve scientifically and mathematically.

But the thing that bothers me greatly, is the teeny tiny thing called the 'Precession of the Equinoxes'. Anyone who is not aware of this phenomena, it basically means that the background stars no longer match the zodiac. When Ptolemy formulated his rules of astrology almost 2000 years ago, the Vernal Equinox was near the start of the constellation of Aries, so in Ptolemys rules, Aries was given as the sign related to the beginning of Spring. However, as the Earth has moved on its axis in its orbit around the sun, Aries is no longer the sign at the Spring Equinox, Pisces is the sign observed at the beginning of Spring.

I know there have been numerous arguments from renowned astrologers pointing to the fact that the background constellations have nothing to do with astrology, but I find none of them convincing. Mainly because Ptolemy was the man who decided that Aries was associated with the Vernal Equinox. He was just a man making observations in accord with the stars 2000 years ago. In Ptolemys eyes, he may have had no idea that the vernal equinox would shift slowly to Pisces as the millennia passed. So if modern astrologers claim that the current Zodiac has nothing to do with background constellations, then doesnt that defy the founding principles and laws of astrology?

This also makes me question the validity of modern house systems. Each one of the houses is representative of the 12 zodiacal signs, the qualities each house represents are akin to the corresponding sign. We have the zodiac exactly divided into 30 degree segments, yet some house systems follow very different rules. Our place of birth relative to the ecliptic does not influence the constellations. But many house systems are based on the assumption that 'what we cannot see has little effect on us'. (smaller house distribution the further away from the ecliptic) It seems insane to me, and I say that mathematically and intuitively.

Here is one more idea of my own. The beginning of the Vernal Equinox is the time when there is an equal number of daylight and night minutes in a day. In this sense, it is a perfect balancing of light and dark, yin and yang, masculine and feminine. There is the possibility that astrology is actually describing the interplay and dynamic exchange between these two fundamental energies, and has little to do with the constellations at all. This would actually support the claim of astrologers that the Precession of the Ages is irrelevent to modern astrology. However, if this is the case, then most of the important questions in astrology have yet to be asked.