Post-Modern Astrology: Part 3: Houses. A Universal System for the Cosmic Era

Astrologers' Community

Help Support Astrologers' Community:

Xeno

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2023
Messages
123
chapter6.png
Astrological Houses

Astrological houses are the division of the celestial sphere into 12 sectors in chronological order. This determines a time cycle that is individual for each person depending on their birth time. However, like the zodiac and aspects, traditional house systems have their limitations.

Astrologer:
But the Placidus and Koch house systems have been tested by centuries of astrological practice!

Skeptic:
And what about the fact that they cannot be calculated at polar latitudes, let alone beyond Earth?

Author:
That is why Postmodern Astrology offers a universal solution – an equal house system from the MC.


Why do we need a house system?

The answer is unequivocal — a house system is necessary. In our concept, time and its cyclicality play a fundamental role. The house system, being directly related to the Earth's rotation around its axis, is essentially another type of time cycle, reflecting the daily rhythm of our lives.


What are the limitations of traditional house systems?

Many popular house systems, such as Placidus, Koch, and the like, have significant limitations. The main drawback is their incorrect operation near the Earth's poles. There, the uneven division of houses leads to distortions, and in some cases, the calculation simply becomes impossible. These systems critically depend on the calculation of the Ascendant (rising sign), which makes them inextricably linked to the geography of the Earth.

This dependence on terrestrial coordinates creates a serious problem: such systems are completely inapplicable in outer space and even on other celestial bodies, for example, on the Moon, where one hemisphere is constantly facing the Earth. For example, the Placidus or Koch house systems, the most common in modern Western astrology, are not defined for locations within the North and South polar circles (latitudes above 66°33′). The reason is that at these latitudes, some degrees of the ecliptic never cross the horizon line, and therefore planets falling into these degrees cannot be correctly assigned to any house based on the mathematical principles of these systems. A similar problem exists for other systems based on the horizon.


Universality as a criterion of truth

A truly correct astrological theory must maintain its applicability regardless of the observation point in the Solar System. We have already accepted this principle when discussing the nature of the zodiac, and it fully applies to the house system.

The main reference point in the Solar System is the Sun itself. The house system makes sense on planets that have their own cycle of rotation around their axis, which leads to the change of day and night. Therefore, the only logically consistent and universal approach is an equal house system from the Midheaven (MC). Unlike systems that rely on the Ascendant, which is determined by the intersection of the ecliptic with the local horizon, the MC is the highest point of the ecliptic at a given moment in time. This makes the MC a much more stable and universally applicable reference point.

In terms of interpretation, houses indicate a subjective focus of attention, in contrast to the signs of the zodiac, which indicate the natural course of time.


Advantages of the equal house system from MC

In the equal house system from MC, the celestial sphere is divided into 12 equal sectors of 30 degrees, starting from the meridian corresponding to the MC. This system has a number of significant advantages:

Independence from geographical latitude:
it works correctly at any latitude on Earth, including polar regions, where traditional systems are useless.

Applicability beyond Earth:
it can be used on any planet or satellite that has a period of rotation, which makes it relevant for future space exploration and extraterrestrial colonizations.

Simplicity and logic:
the equal division of houses provides a straightforward and unambiguous interpretation of the position of planets in the houses.


What is the role of the topographical Ascendant?

In my opinion, the Ascendant point can be considered as an additional layer of information. After all, it is a real astronomical point, closely related to the circadian rhythms of a person and the sunrise in a specific place.


Astrologer:
In principle, I have no serious objections. In classical astrology, there are quite a few supporters of equal house systems, and you allow for the consideration of the topographical ascendant.

Author:
That is why the equal house system from MC becomes the universal tool that allows us to consistently apply the principles of Postmodern Astrology at any point in the Solar System.

Skeptic:
Ok. Let's cross off the point about the impossibility of geographical calculation from the list of claims.
 
Comments and feedback are welcome! I'm interested in hearing any suggestions, criticism, and remarks you might have, especially regarding whether this equal house system from the MC is truly ideal or if further astronomical considerations could refine it.

... Moving on, the next chapter will be significantly more complex and will delve into the model of human perception.
 
David Cochrane has proposed using three equal house systems together, calculated from the Ascendant, MC and the Vertex respectively.
For high latitude locations, he proposes a kind of "sliding scale" of the use of the Ascendant at lower latitudes transitioning gradually to the Vertex at higher latitudes.
 
David Cochrane has proposed using three equal house systems together, calculated from the Ascendant, MC and the Vertex respectively.
For high latitude locations, he proposes a kind of "sliding scale" of the use of the Ascendant at lower latitudes transitioning gradually to the Vertex at higher latitudes.
Well, I agree that this scaling will help make calculations in polar latitudes – but it doesn't change the essence of the matter and is simply a way of tweaking things to "make the numbers add up".
 
Well, I agree that this scaling will help make calculations in polar latitudes – but it doesn't change the essence of the matter and is simply a way of tweaking things to "make the numbers add up".
David has put a fair amount of research into this, suggest there's a bit more to it than just trying to "make the numbers add up."
Consider this comments and feedback.
For those interested:



 
David has put a fair amount of research into this, suggest there's a bit more to it than just trying to "make the numbers add up."
Consider this comments and feedback.
I'm subscribed to David's YouTube channel and have deep respect for him. He has indeed done a tremendous amount of work. He's probably one of the very few astrologers who has likely worked even more with statistics than I have, and I've spent a good deal of time analyzing samples from Astrodatabank and Gauquelin's data (that was about 5 years ago). I also observed correlations in the samples, particularly among people suffering from mental health disorders.

While I can't directly compare our methods, they were likely somewhat similar - like the combo of Python-Pandas methods and probability theory.

Now, the concept of vibrations is beautiful, but I don't agree with it. It's like in physics, string theory – it looks beautiful, but lacks an objective explanation.

I'm writing this to make clear that I'm not trying to belittle him at all. It's simply my opinion that his theory doesn't attempt to explain everything objectively. He himself states that there are some universal laws (which is equivalent to mythological gods).

The same goes for the Vertex, Ascendant, MC – all I hear are statements and analogies
 
Back
Top