What is your opinion of the Whole Signs house system on natal charts?

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Anyone may easily create their own chart on Extended Chart Selection Page of astrodienst
using Whole Signs for one chart
and any of the other fourteen different house systems on offer there
including Placidus which is simply the default :smile:
and then note the differences for oneself
 

Jaded

Premium Member
I was doing some research, and by doing so pulled up tons of these old threads. I would like to learn a bit more on this particular topic and see if I can get more opinions. :unsure:

Ive looked at both of my charts and they differ quite a bit. I cannot help but lean toward whole sign.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I was doing some research
and by doing so pulled up tons of these old threads.
I would like to learn a bit more on this particular topic
and see if I can get more opinions.
:unsure:

Ive looked at both of my charts and they differ quite a bit.

I cannot help but lean toward whole sign.


I use BOTH whole signs AND Alcabitius

and in fact
tsmall uses BOTH whole signs AND Placidus

some use whole sign AND Regiomontanus
there are multiple house systems
its a matter of personal choice


I shall quote tsmalls comment
posted on another thread at
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum...ad.php?t=94683


I use both whole signs and Placidus.

The original idea of quadrant based house systems was to determine angularity,
and never to replace the concept of topics.

So I count signs for topics

and use a house system overlaid onto it.

Because, as I mentioned above,

capability and angularity/ability to act

are two different things.


keep in mind that
the current understanding of whole signs
differs from the way astrologers originally utilised whole sign houses

as dr. farr has stated many times
the 0 degrees beginning every sign in whole sign houses is the BORDER of the whole sign house NOT the CUSP :smile:

as you have said you are "leaning towards whole signs"
and want to learn more on that topic
then keep in mind dr. farrs synopsis
i.e.
that the original meaning of the word "cusp" meant "point"
such as cuspal teeth (bicuspids) and the point of a sword
-so originally the term cusp meant the "point" of something,
and in astrology originally the "cusp" of the whole sign house meant its "point"
NOT THE BORDER BETWEEN ONE HOUSE AND ANOTHER
BUT INSTEAD
THE POINT (cusp) for EACH house was the sensitive point of that house
i.e.
the ascending degree.

So the 0 degrees of whole sign houses determines the INGRESS point of planets
while the SENSITIVE POINT of whole sign houses is linked to the ascending degree

here's dr. farr's original clear, succinct explication/synopsis posted at
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?p=311413#post311413
Cusps:

Today
(and for the past thousand years or so)
we define cusps as "borders" (coasts),

but that is not the original meaning of the word "cusp":
it means "point"

such as
cuspal teeth (bicuspids)
and
the point of a sword

-so originally the term cusp meant the "point" of something,

and
in astrology originally the "cusp" of the house meant its "point"
;

now, when quadrant systems were developed, this "point" of the house came to mean its "beginning",
which later came to mean its "border",
ie, the "border" between one house and the other.

And later astrology also began using these "borders" (cusps)
for various prognostic applications
(Charles Carter came to believe that, for timing of events, the "cusps" of the Campanus house system gave the best results,
among the various quadrant house systems)


But now notice this:
in whole sign the cusps are NOT the 0 degree "borders" of sign/houses at all, and never were so regarded!

In whole sign, the "cusp" retained its original meaning,
not as a "border"
but rather as A POINT


-and that POINT (cusp) for EACH house,
was the sensitive point of that house,
viz,
the sensitive point in whole sign houses
-each house
-that is the "cusp" of each house
-is a direct projection from the ascending degree.


Example:
-the ascending degree of a chart is 18 Taurus:
what are the house cusps
(sensitive points, original meaning of the word "cusp")
in the whole sign houses of this chart?
Cusp of 1st house = 18 Taurus
Cusp of 2nd house = 18 Gemini
Cusp of 3rd house = 18 Cancer
Cusp of 4th house = 18 Leo
Cusp of 5th house = 18 Virgo
Cusp of 6th house = 18 Libra
Cusp of 7th house = 18 Scorpio
Cusp of 8th house = 18 Sagittarius
Cusp of 9th house = 18 Capricorn
Cusp of 10th house = 18 Aquarius
Cusp of 11th house = 18 Pisces
Cusp of 12th house = 18 Aries

Now it is these "cusps"
(sensitive degrees, original meaning of the word "cusp" as a "point")
that are
(and were)
used for progressions, timing of events, etc,
and the fact is that they work for these purposes, quite well
(in expert hands)

Whole sign does not use the BORDERS between houses
(always 0 degree of any sign) for anything,
but it DOES use "cusps"
(points in the house, projected from the exact ascending degree)
for timing
(and other)
delineative purposes.


Whole sign suddenly vanished
(both in the West and in Vedic astrology)
during the same period of time
-ie, late 8th to early 9th century
-this sudden disappearance suggests a sudden turn in astrological thinking and practices,
rather than a gradual supplanting of a less effective traditional method
(whole sign)
by a new and more effective method
(rheotrius/alchabitius in the West,
and the closely related to whole sign Equal house, in Vedic astrology)


I quite agree with Waybread in the statement, "so what?" (if old time astrologers did or didn't do something)
For me, there is only 1 reason I switched to whole sign
-it worked better (FOR ME)
I could care less if it were the oldest house system
(which it is)
or whether it was invented by Badda Bing at Barney's Beanery in Bayonne, 10 years ago:
only things I consider are:
-does it seem to make sense?
-does it "taste good" to me
(ie, does it "feel right" to me)
-and, if yes to the above,
does it work
(producing delineations and predicitions)
better than what I have previously been doing?

Well, whole sign did all that, for me, so I switched;
but I am not going to try to convince anyone of anything about it,
except for beginners
-to you who might just be starting out,
I would say: try whole sign first,
and see how well it might work for you...

 

Jaded

Premium Member
To be sure I'm getting an accurate chart .... what (other then the obvious "drop down" whole signs) do I need to click into my natal.

After filling in my info, I would choose drop down natal, then whole signs..... After....?

That's where I'm a bit confused!?!? Do I go to sidreal or stick with tropical?

With placidius (Natal) I always placed my orbs at 85%, should I tweak them with whole signs as well?

Thanks
-Jade
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
To be sure I'm getting an accurate chart ....
what (other then the obvious "drop down" whole signs) do I need to click into my natal.

After filling in my info, I would choose drop down natal, then whole signs..... After....?

That's where I'm a bit confused!?!?
Do I go to sidreal or stick with tropical?

With placidius (Natal) I always placed my orbs at 85%, should I tweak them with whole signs as well?

Thanks
-Jade
If you are accustomed to using Tropical then select the Tropical option :smile:
with the usual orbs that you are accustomed to


by the way after creating a natal chart using whole signs with Tropical
it is an interesting exercise
to create another natal chart and select whole signs with the Sidereal option
simply in order to compare your natal chart from the sidereal perspective
and the Tropical perspective
keep in mind that
when using the Sidereal option
Larhiri ayanamsa is a popular choice

for your interest, a thread discussion from years ago on sidereal
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45142
 
Top