From: "Jonathan C. Dunn" Newsgroups: alt.astrology Subject: Re: MC and houses in Polar Zone Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 19:56:15 -0700 Organization: Speakeasy Cafe Lines: 240 Message-ID: References: <4uviq0$bim@horos.kbfi.ee> <4vpdpk$jcb@epimetheus.algonet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: eve.speakeasy.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII To:  Per Dahlin In-Reply-To: <4vpdpk$jcb@epimetheus.algonet.se> **************************************************************** Preliminarily: At locations above the arctic circle, but not on the pole, zero Cancer makes a little cirle in the sky, veering closer to the zenith and veering away in 24 hours, but always above the horizon. Zero Capricorn makes a little circle (out of sight) below the horizon, veering away from the nadir(toward the zenith) and back toward the nadir(away from the zenith) in 24 hours. Although zero Cancer is always above the horizon here, it 'culminates' - reaches maximum angular altitude at the moment that zero Capricorn has the lowest angular altitude, and 12 hours later the 2 points are in the opposite relationship. So both points 'culminate', although only zero Cancer is ever the intersection between the meridian and the ecliptic which is visible, or above the horizon. When zero Cancer culminates, it is due south. When zero Capricorn culminates, it is due south. **************************************************************** On Sun, 25 Aug 1996, Per Dahlin wrote: > The difference between MC and IC is that MC is > always above the horizon and the IC is always > below the horizon. Why do you prefer the above definition over: 'The difference between MC and IC is the MC is 'culminating' i.e. is at its maximum elevation for a 24 hour period - and is lower immediately before and after, whereas the IC is the opposite - its elevation is greater immediately before and after.' ? Using this 2nd definition, MC as 'culminating' can be below the horizon. And: Does the acceptance of one point or the other as properly the 'MC' in and of itself tell us which point to use as the 10th-house cusp? > For instance, > MC can never appear as 0 degree Capricorn in the > North Arctic, nor can 0 degree Cancer appear as IC > there. And the opposite is true for the South Arctic. Using your definition. > For instance, take the date 24 AUG 1996 and the Lati- > tude of 67.00 North and Longitude (Meridian) 0.00 > East/West and 0 hour Time Zone. At 19h48m (7.48 pm) > most astrological computer programs will calculate > the MC to 0.20 Capricorn, which is a impossible > value!!! The correct position for MC at this time > is 0.20 Cancer! Cancer is above horizon, Capricorn however is culminating. > The Horoscope Wheel is drawn with the 4 directions > as reference; east to the left side, west to the > right side, south at the top and north at the > bottom. So when MC appears in the opposite direc- > tion it will be drawn somewhere at the bottom at > the horoscope wheel like this... > > South > IC "This side is BELOW > ----/ the horizon" > / / \ > East ---- |---/---|-- Horizon West > \ / / > ----- > / "This side is ABOVE > MC the horizon" > North > > And this makes most astrologers confused because > they are not used to see the Horoscope Wheel like > this. But just because MC is in the north doesn't > mean that it's under the horizon. In fact the oppo- > site, MC IS ALWAYS ABOVE THE HORIZON!!! (as IC IS > ALWAYS BELOW THE HORIZON). So, this means that we > must change how we look upon the horoscope - when > MC is in a circumpolar zone. Near the N pole, all ecliptical points which are culminating are south. If you flip to force MC above the horizon, MC ends up North/Above-Horizon at times. Ok. > The difference between Ascendant and the Descen- > dant is that the Ascendant is always rising and > the Descendant is always descending. > Since the same phenomena appears to both the Ascen- > dant and the Descendant the only way to know whether > the Ascendant really is the Ascendant (and not the > Descendant) is to prove that it is ascending and > not descending. By checking to see if a point is above or below the horizon immediately after. Ok, so your MC you've defined as 0.20 Cancer, though 0.20 Capricorn is below the horizon and culminating. > If we use the same example again, 24 AUG 1996, lati- > tude 67.00 North and longitude 00.00 East/West, > Time Zone 0h and Time 19h48m (7.48 PM) then the > Ascendant is 12 degrees in Pisces - or Virgo?! I would think from my own experience that it is Pisces, since the 'culminating' point, I've found, is always 0 to 180 degrees behind the 'rising' point - above the arctic circle as elsewhere. > If > we redo the calculation 2 minutes later on, at > 19h50m /7.50 PM) the Ascendant is at 23 degrees > Aquarius - or Leo!? Thus, the horizon-intercept points are retrograde. > So, the opposite point - Pisces is the Ascendant - > and Virgo is Descendant. If your computer programs > shows the opposite it calculates the Ascendant > wrong! Yes. That's what I get. So, now you have MC Cancer and ASC Pisces. If you put the MC as house 10 you have a problem - houses in reverse zodiac order! (At least, I consider it a problem.) > Due to the fact that we draw the horoscope with the > four directions as reference points, the horoscope > will look like this > > South > IC "This side is BELOW > ----/ the horizon" > / / \ > East Asc --|---/---|-- Desc West > \ / / > ----- > / "This side is ABOVE > MC the horizon" > North It looks exactly like the one that I would draw, except for you labeling convention regarding the MC/IC. > By changing direction for the MC so that the drawn > horoscope look "upside-down" does not really change > the positions for the house cusps (disregarding all > the weird systems that exists). So the houses 12, 11, > 10, 9, 8 and 7 will ALWAYS be on the same side as > the MC - as they always is! And the opposite for > the remaining houses (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 will ALWAYS > be on the same side as the IC). Reverse - houses! It seems to me this causes completely unnecessary confusion! If one could only bring one's self to define 10th cusp as 'culminating', instead of 'above the horizon', the reverse-order could be eliminated! > > South IC > 2 3 /4 "This side is BELOW > ----/ 5 the horizon" > 1 / / \ 6 > East Asc --|---/---|-- Desc West > 12 \ / / 7 > 11 ----- 8 > 10 / 9 "This side is ABOVE > MC the horizon" > North > Since your MC is Cancer, and ASC is Pisces, your 12th house must be forward from your ASC (Aries maybe), your 11th must be further forward (Taurus), and thus houses are to be understood very differently now! Why not just use culmination?! An interesting question here regarding equal houses: Since, by your conceptualization of houses/angles, successive cusps are at successively EARLIER zodiac signs, does this apply to the equal-house system? For example, if my ASC is 12 Pisces, should my 2nd house cusp be 12 Aquarius? **************************************************************** The validation process of one's software is so much easier if you use 'culmination' point as 10th-house cusp, instead of 'above-horizon meridian-intercept': 1) The culmination point is always within a few degrees from the RAMC, or 360 degree measure of the siderial time. If output is closer to 180 degrees off, flip it. 2) If your Ascendant is not in the 1/2 of the zodiac forward from the culmination point determined in (#1), flip it. That is all. This will always give you 1st-cusp 'rising' and 10th-house 'culminating', and houses will go forward through the zodiac. **************************************************************** In the moderate northern latitudes in which astrology was developed, the 'MC as 10th house cusp' was always both: 1) Above the horizon, and 2) Culminating. It is when one wishes to apply 'MC as 10th house cusp' to locations above the Arctic circle, one finds that (1) and (2) are not always the same. Which one to use? Which one fits better the symbolism? Pros and cons: (1) Pro: If MC means 'middle of the heaven' then it should be visible. Con: This causes reverse-houses, which to me is quite confusing and large sacrifice of meaning and clarity. (2) Pro: If MC means 'at its highest' then it should be culminating, visible or not. This also preserves the order of the houses! Con: Not visible. Using (2) above, which makes more sense to me, we get, for your example: > > South > Cap. "This side is BELOW > ----/ the horizon" > / / \ > Pis.--|---/---|--Vir. > \ / / > ----- > / "This side is ABOVE > Can. the horizon" > North So far, this looks just like yours. But when I stick the intermediate houses in, I don't have to vary form the normal understanding. The 11th and/or 12th cups will be in Aquarius. Really it all hinges on the question: Do the meanings of having planets in the 9th and 10th houses derive from being 'elevated' even if near their own lowest elevation for the day, or do they derive from being at their highest elevation for the day, even though they may be relatively low, even below the horizon. Your system takes the 1st alternative, mine the 2nd. ****************************************************************