i vote for placidus

Gogolesque,

I agree completely that different house systems work on different ways, and on different levels...something I have said a few times on other threads. However, I don't see the systems in quite the same way you do.

I see Koch as being a much better descriptor of a person's psychological motivations than Placidus, whether they are loners or not.

I've used the Equal House System with great accuracy in analyzing the charts of children, and the shift between Equal House and Koch shows me how they change and adapt when they grow up and enter into the world, separating from their childhood environment.

I use Placidus for Elective Astrology, and Horary Astrology, finding it gives the greatest accuracy there.

There are a great many other house systems that work that you did not mention. Some of these include:
Polich-Page or Topocentric
Porphyry
Alcabitus [or Alchabitius or Alcabitius or Alcibitius or Alcabitius Declination]
Campanus
Abenragel-APC Houses
Svarogich Houses
Krusinski House System

Astrologer Ed Fallis wrote a remarkably astute article about different house systems, which I will include, below. But note his statement early on in the article: "My fundamental assumption is that the different frames of reference used to derive the house systems each has a validity - each offers a perspective or point of view on the chart. " And for all those who swear by only one house system, please read with extra care the paragraph Ed writes that begins: "Where I find a problem is with the "one, true perspective" approach - "

------------------

HOUSE SYSTEMS - BY ED FALIS

You'll find advocates of many, many house systems, each swearing that
the one s/he uses works most effectively.

I use a "3D" version of Campanus for most of my natal work. I don't
do much in the way of event-oriented work, which may explain my
preference somewhat after the explanations below.

My fundamental assumption is that the different frames of reference
used to derive the house systems each has a validity - each offers a
perspective or point of view on the chart. The trick is in using
analogical thinking about how the system is derived mathematically to
define the perspective you're viewing from. This assumption is based
on my experience and thinking about the issue. Your mileage may, of
course, vary.

Based on this assumption, there are two kinds of house systems:
geometric and proportional time.


STARTING POINT

For both geometric and proportional time systems, we start with the
space around the earth. The center of this space for most systems is
the location of the "event", though for some systems the center of
the earth is used.

We imagine this space as a sphere with infinite bounds around the
center point. The space could also be viewed as a cubic space with x,
y and z coordinates, but since astrological work is intimately
interwoven with the idea of cycles, it tends to be done only in a
spherical conceptual space.

Now we'll talk about geometrically derived systems, but note that all
systems embody the complementary derivation as a background.
"Space-based" systems are implicitly driven by time; "time-based"
systems implicitly work against a geometrical/spatial background.
Each heightens the perception of one element and puts the other into
the background. This is why treating the systems as points of view
has power - any point of view reveals some aspects of a whole while
hiding others: it's in the nature of our attention.


GEOMETRICALLY- DERIVED HOUSE SYSTEMS

Derivation of a geometric system starts with determining a plane
through the sphere to be used to make the equal divisions
corresponding to the houses. The plane is viewed as a "great circle"
on the surface of our imaginary sphere, and the houses are defined
by dividing the circumference into 12 30-degree sections. Some of
the planes used in various house systems are the celestial equator
(regiomontanus), the prime vertical (campanus), the horizon
(Zenithscope / "local space"), and the ecliptic ("equal house").

Next a plane or space within which to determine a house position for
a body or point is selected. In most systems, this is the ecliptic,
or standard zodiac. Note that unless the measurement plane is the
same as the house derivation plane, the houses will have unequal
sizes in the measurement plane. By analogical reasoning, the unequal
house systems are a bridging or synthesis of two distinct
perspectives (more on this later).

Finally, a zero-point and direction of measurement is selected. With
typical house systems the zero-point is the intersection of the
horizon with the ecliptic (the ascendant) and the direction is
counter-clockwise - the order of numbering the traditional/modern
houses. Sound arguments can be made for a clockwise measurement as
well - see Joseph Crane's reconsideration of the lunation cycle in
the Feb/Mar issue of The Mountain Astrologer, that gives some idea as
to how one might apply the same approach to diurnal motion.

Many natally-oriented astrologers seem to prefer
geometrically-derived systems, though there is definitely an effect
of preference based on whichever table of houses happened to be
widespread in a given locale before the widespread availability of
astrological software (e.g. the Placidus preference in the US).
Michael Myer and Gordon Brown have recently written about this
preference for Humanistic Astrology as one that provides an
undistorted representation of personal psychological ("local") space.


PROPORTIONAL-TIME SYSTEMS

Proportional-time systems are derived by equal division of the time
for a point in space to move from one geometrical divider to another.
The common systems (Placidus, Koch, and more obscurely, but worth
mentioning, the Topocentric) divide movement from the ascendant to
the MC, MC to descendant, descendant to IC and IC to ascendant in
various ways. As commonly derived, the points are points on the
ecliptic, derived mathematically. I believe placidus divides each of
the quadrants defined above into equal periods of time, and looks at
where the ascendant would be at each elapse. I believe Koch looks at
30 degree divisions of right ascension/sidereal time,
measured from the RAMC and calculates ascendants for each of these to
locate the intermediate house cusps. The topocentric system uses a
model based on equally dividing an "apparent cone of rotation" of the
sky from the position of the observer. So, each of these has an
implicit geometric component.

Some of the systems, when used for progressions and transits, take
into account a body's deviation from the ecliptic (celestial
latitude) when timing events, as seems logical; others don't.

I've found that astrologers working with events tend to prefer a
proportional-time system, as these systems are according to these
practitioners more effective/precise for timing events.

The topocentric system is interesting in that its originators based
its theoretical explanation on empirical timing. The value of its
inductive derivation was questioned by Geoffrey Dean in Recent
Advances in Natal Astrology, where he pointed out that there were so
many potential contacts that the findings used in the derivation were
statistically insignificant. I found the system reasonably effective
when I studied it.


PROBLEMS WITH APPLICABILITY OF SYSTEMS

Many house systems (in particular those that project or measure in
the ecliptic) run into problems at extreme geographic latitudes.
This is because there are times when the mathematical foundations of
their derivation fail. For instance, the horizon can coincide with
the ecliptic at the arctic and antarctic circles, making it
impossible to define an ascendant (the point of intersection of the
horizon and ecliptic). Or, for systems based on proportional
division of a quadrant of movement in time, a point on the ecliptic
may never appear above or below the horizon at certain
latitudes and times of year, so no basis for division of time occurs.
The topocentric system has a somewhat odd alternative formula for
dealing with this.

Another problem with most systems is the insistence of working on the
ecliptic. All the systems mentioned so far that measure position in
the ecliptic place bodies depending on their zodiacal position
relative to the zodiacal positions of the house cusps. This can
easily lead to placement of a planet with a large latitude above or
below the ascendant/descendent axis, when the body is actually on the
other side of the horizon (eg. pluto placed in the first house after
it's risen). A solution to this is center house-oriented analysis on
the basis of position in the plane of division for geometric systems,
and to refer to the ecliptic for synthetic information, such as sign
relationships to the house cusps.


PHILOSOPHICAL MEANINGS - WHICH HOUSE SYSTEM FOR WHAT?

Ok, these are my current set of opinions, based on thinking about
this for some time.

The starting point is that we exist in multidimensional space-time.
Choice of emphasis on time or space is nothing other than that -
choice. We make distinctions to help ourselves understand and act
effectively. We then elaborate these distinctions as logical systems
used to discover order when we apply them, or to filter what we
experience so we can deal with it from a given perspective. If this
is the nature of cognition, then different systems will work in
different contexts, for different intents.

Where I find a problem is with the "one, true perspective" approach -
a single effective system in a context is generalized as the only way
to do things. The distinction and elaboration at its foundation is
forgotten in its application - its context and intent are lost. I
think that this effect is very prominent in the use of houses. And
this is why there are so many arguments over it - as we blind people
touch the elephant, we have valid perceptions and reasoning, but we
forget that we're blind, and are experiencing a partial perception
intimately tied to our perspective.

In software development, a lot of effort has gone into modeling the
systems we build. Some of the more sophisticated practitioners have
come to the conclusion that our models (views on the system) can only
be partial - that a given system can only be well-understood by
cycling through multiple models using different perspectives. A view
oriented towards events or behavior of a system brings some aspects
to attention and hides others; similarly for data (space),
functionality and agency (who does what) views. The whole system
eludes a given view because it exists at a level beyond these
conceptualizations.


IS IT ANY DIFFERENT WITH ASTROLOGY ?

House systems fundamentally are trying to describe the interaction of
local space with more generic orbital relationships (described by
zodiacal positions) as mediated by the daily axial rotation of the
earth. They do this through what are essentially mathematical
abstractions: arbitrary distinctions (with some physical
correlations) such as horizon, prime vertical, prime meridian,
zenith/nadir and paths or trails of either the physical bodies or
abstract mathematical points.

Is this anything other than a modeling system to help us understand
and order our experience?

If it is a modeling system, then the characteristics of models used
in software, mathematics and systems theory are likely to apply:
that the reality can be captured only partially in any given model,
and that the meaning of phenomena in that model are driven by the
intent and derivation of the modeling tool. Not to mention the
experience of the practitioner in correlating the abstraction with
phenomena.

In local space relative to the observer, two common measurements are
available: measurement by prime vertical (the foundation of Campanus)
and measurement along the horizon (local space directional). One is
a vertical measure; the other horizontal. These are perhaps the
closest frames of reference to the individual, and should measure the
most personal experience in these two dimensions. Thus, Rudhyar and
the Humanists preference for the Campanus house system for
psycho-spiritual work (the vertical dimension), and the use of the
horizontal system for physical and geographical work.

A system like Regiomontanus, which divides the equator moves more to
the implicit diurnal motion perspective that is attacked more
explicitly by Placidus, Koch and the Topocentric approaches. Now
event is the perspective we look, with varying degrees of remove
from the spatial abstractions of the geometric systems.

The equal house systems, based on MC, ASC or Sun (or other body for
that matter) are basically casting the physical relationships of the
planets within the distribution of the meaning of the primary point
used. A cycle is a cycle, complete with phases that cut across the
particular cycle being studied. These systems measure the cycles of
the points or bodies mentioned in the frame of the earth's orbital
relationship to the sun - somewhat more remote than the first two
sets of perspectives.

And so on. The orbital cycle of the earth can be viewed in the plane
of the ecliptic, geocentrically or heliocentrically. Aspect
relationships can be viewed in the ecliptic or along great circles as
geometry, or as a phase cycle in the orbital plane of the slower
planet. To treat time or space in the foreground, its complement
recedes.

And to further open up the wonderment, we can relate two
perspectives, as most house systems do, by projecting measurement in
one plane into another, typically the ecliptic. The problem with
this is that it corresponds to our modern tradition, where we've
forgotten that we're projecting local space or time into orbital
space/time and often confuse the two. So we treat a planet above the
horizon as in the first house - we abstract a bit too far from what's
in our faces when we go outside and look at the sky. And we engage
in endless debates about the relative merits of our abstractions and
points of view, instead of communicating the true sophistication of
this reality-modeling discipline in which we engage to the rest of
the world.

you didn't challenge his authority, you just gave his gemini brain an excuse to cut loose and show it's stuff.

Gogolesque,

I respect your opinion, and never saw it as a 'challenge' or anything. If you will read my wording, I too was expressing opinion. "I don't see the systems in quite the same way you do. " I never claimed to be stating indisputable facts, only expressing my perception of the house system issue.

I hope you didn't feel that I was attacking your view in any way.