Deborah Houlding and Whole Sign House Denialism

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