In episode 386 Chris Brennan addresses a controversial lecture that was recently given by Deborah Holding where she denied the historical existence of the whole sign house system in ancient astrology.
Holding claims that whole sign houses did not exist in ancient astrology, and that the concept was only invented in the 1990s by Robert Hand and Robert Schmidt of Project Hindsight.
Chris sets out to present evidence that contradicts Holding's claims, demonstrating that there is ample evidence for the existence of whole sign houses in ancient astrology, and to provide a commentary on the distortions and misrepresentations made in her lecture.
During the course of the commentary Chris emphasizes the importance of separating the historical debate from the current practice of astrology, and criticizes Holding for denying the historical existence of whole sign houses based on personal preferences rather than objective evidence.
Chris also discusses the concept of whole sign house denialism, which is the attempt to deny the existence of whole sign houses in ancient astrology and dismiss or suppress any historical evidence that it existed, as well why it is important to address false claims in order to set the historical record straight.
This is a recording of a livestream that was broadcast on February 9, 2023.
It is best to watch the video version on YouTube, because there are lots of visual elements, although most of the information is contained in the audio.
This episode is available in both audio and video versions below.
Timestamps
00:00:00 Introduction
00:01:24 Houlding's lecture details
00:02:36 Houlding’s claims summarized
00:03:09 Her central false claim: 'Zero' historical astrologers
00:05:14 Whole sign house denialism
00:08:45 History vs. contemporary practice
00:11:36 Reconciling house systems
00:13:27 Why this response is necessary
00:16:30 History of the debate
00:19:43 Responding to the lecture release
00:21:31 Scholarly refutations of Houlding
00:24:43 Rhetorical question for the audience
00:27:02 Commentary and fair use
00:29:02 Further resources on house division
00:33:35 The 'sneak diss' tactic
00:37:50 Commentary begins
00:40:10 Houlding quotes Co–Star
00:43:17 Claim: Whole sign houses didn't exist pre-90s
00:48:19 Popularity of whole sign houses
00:53:25 Dismissing Equal Houses
00:58:32 The 'psychology' behind the movement
01:03:33 Houlding’s principal claim & James Holden
01:09:55 James Holden’s 1982 paper
01:14:00 Ancient sources defining whole sign houses
01:22:42 Examples of ancient horoscopes
01:27:26 Dorotheus of Sidon’s use
01:30:03 Project Hindsight coins the term
01:40:41 Vettius Valens’ chart examples
01:49:52 Precursors: German & French astrologers
02:00:23 Medieval Islamic tradition
02:11:00 The traditional astrology revival
02:16:40 Tensions between Lilly revivalists & Project Hindsight
02:22:48 Robert Hand’s background
02:31:52 Robert Schmidt’s background
02:44:53 Mischaracterizing Project Hindsight
03:00:34 Robert Zoller's split from Project Hindsight
03:10:52 Project Hindsight’s broad interests
03:22:53 Debunking Project Hindsight’s alleged narrow focus
03:36:34 Core Argument: Zero evidence
03:47:48 Houlding's conceptual argument
04:00:34 False claim: Valens only used quadrant houses
04:07:34 Calculating the Midheaven from the Ascendant
04:17:12 Schmidt’s theory: Topics vs. strength
04:24:43 The edited Robert Schmidt clip
04:52:46 Misrepresenting Valens’ Book 9
05:07:42 Valens' definition of Equal Houses
05:22:53 Presentation of chart diagrams
05:46:42 Dismissal of the Indian tradition
06:01:28 Wade Caves’ conceptual argument
06:18:02 Conclusion: 'It’s not a real system'
06:26:50 Final thoughts and conclusion
06:33:35 Astrologers and historical research
06:40:05 Rob Hand quote on evaluating ancient astrology
