Where´s the house influence focus?

[Squapius]

Hello astrologer fellas.

I have a basic question, that however has remained unanswered.
According to what I´ve read, the cusp of a certain house are the degrees where the house matters are most influential and the planets in conjunction to this point take an important role in the said house matters.

The house can be taken as a section of space where transits go on through the zodiac.
The cusp of a house is the beggining of this section, therefore it´s a transition.
Why should the house matters be most influential in the transition where one house ends and the another starts? Why the middle degrees of a certain length house are not the most influential ones?
Is the house just a point or focus of influence placed in some degree or is it the house a unit or an integer that conforms a section in the zodiac and a variable nuber of degrees? Shouldn´t be the cusp of a house just where the house matter influece it´s starting very light and weak?

Maybe I just ignore it and it´s a basic of astrology.
Could you clear my doubts?

Please, post.



Thank you.

[Squapius]

Aaaaand...you can move this to the greenhorns board if it´s too basic....
... *blush*

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

Because "cusp" doesn't mean "boundary" or anything like that. "Cusp" comes from a word meaning "point". So, the cusp is more like the point of the house, therefore, the planets closest to the point are the more influential tenets of the house, and it's why five degrees before the "point" is still considered with the virtue of that house.

"Cusp"="boundary" is a modern idea.

[starlink]

Aaaaand...you can move this to the greenhorns board if it´s too basic....
... *blush*

No Squapius, this is not a basic question at all. Many students of astrology dont even think about this and you did. It shows interest and that is always good.
I just think that a planet who just starts into a new house (or sign, for that matter) is strong because it is still at the beginning of it's journey through that house or sign and still has the enthousiasm and strength which then becomes a little weaker when that planet is used to the new circumstances.

You must think of a planet as an energy. The energy changes when it changes from one house/sign especially, to another. It has to adjust to the new surroundings and the first jump into that new environment is full of anticipation and vitality.(this is my way of understanding planetary energies, I play some sort of visual thing in my mind).

[Squapius]

Hello Kaiousei.

I still don´t get it.
It is certainly a point, but then why astrologers say that a planet it´s placed inside a certain house, like for example the midheaven, when it´s in a tight orb conjuntion to the next house? If the house is a point, I should take it as a focus, not the beggining and end of a limited space determined by the cusp of the house in question and the cusp of the next house, respectively.
If the house it´s a point (its cusp) I should take it as a focus of irradiation. But this makes no sense. This focus or point acts as a delimitation of a section that find its beggining on it. If the house is a focus or a point, a planet placed "inside" midheaven in a tight orb conjunction to the 11th house, should be inside or in the therms of the 11th house.
Example:
The ASC cusp is placed in 17º of aries.
The 2nd house cusp is in 5º of taurus.
And Mars is placed in 4º of taurus.
Then mars would be inside the ASC, taking the cuspide of the 2nd house as the end of the ASC. Then, we say that Mars is placed inside the ASC, taking the ASC as the whole bunch of degrees that finds its beggining in the ASC cusp (17º aries) and ending in the cusp of the 2nd house (5º taurus). Then, although is just a mysterious point, the ASC includes the degrees that go since 17º aries to 5º taurus, being this a section of space having its first frontier (ASC cusp 17º aries) and final frontier (2nd house cusp 5º taurus). Why the first frontier or the house (cusp) would have a greater influence in a planet conjuncted to it in a tight orb? And why is it more powerful than the final frontier? If the house is just a point, its influence should have some kind of contact with the following house that is a point too. Then it would have to be some place where the energies of the two points blend. Or not?


Does it blend????


Is the house a section???? Is it a point of radiation????


If the houses are points (their cusps), and are like focus, then why a planet in conjunction at the left side and close the cuspide of the following house is still placed in the previous house??


o__o??

[windwispers]

this is off subject, but i love your handwriting squapius.

[Squapius]

Originally Posted by Windwhispers

this is off subject, but i love your handwriting squapius.

Yes, it´s cool. But it´s too much sketchy there.

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

It is certainly a point, but then why astrologers say that a planet it´s placed inside a certain house, like for example the midheaven, when it´s in a tight orb conjuntion to the next house?

They shouldn't. That's the point. Planets five degrees from a house cusp are considered to be inside of that house.

If the house is a point, I should take it as a focus, not the beggining and end of a limited space determined by the cusp of the house in question and the cusp of the next house, respectively.

Why should you do that again? The house is a section of space with a beginning and an ending, the cusp is the point of the house. The beginning being five degrees before the cusp and the ending being five degrees before the next cusp.

Your main problem is that you're trying to use "house" and "cusp" interchangeably when they are really two separate things.

Example:
The ASC cusp is placed in 17º of aries.
The 2nd house cusp is in 5º of taurus.
And Mars is placed in 4º of taurus.

Mars is in the Second house because the cusp gets five degrees before it as the orb of a non-luminous object.

It seems like you're going off into a million different directions and I, honestly, just can't follow all of your questions. So, I'm sorry if I haven't answered all of your questions or any of them effectively, but I just can't seem to wrap my head around what you're asking. I think most of it is because we're thinking of houses in two different ways. Houses aren't points, they're the space between two points.

[EJ53]

Originally Posted by Kai

.....Your main problem is that you're trying to use "house" and "cusp" interchangeably when they are really two separate things.

Yes - and it's difficult to explain this without knowing which house system is being used and whether traditional or modern astrology applies.

As a "modern" astrology student using the Placidus house system, I find it easy to confuse the starting degree of a house with it's cusp degree because the same degree point applies to both. So Squapius, applying your example in the Placidus system, the first house starts at 17 Aries and ends at 5 Taurus - with the cusp point located at 17 Aries. However, in the Whole Sign house system (for example) the first house would be 0-29 Aries with the cusp point still located at 17 Aries - which makes it clear that the starting and cusp degrees of a house define two different things (as explained by Kai).

Thus, Mars at 4 Taurus is within a 1 degree orb of the first house Placidus cusp but outside the influence of the first house Whole Sign cusp - and what you've read applies to the cusp point only.

However, when a natal planet is located at the end of a house, you also need to bear in mind that it's focus will be modified by it's progression into the next house. So, whilst such planets will always be focused primarily upon the activities of it's natal house, that focus will widen to also include the activities of the house it progresses into (as explained by Starlink).

EJ

[starlink]

Well Squapius, you could not have gotten better teachers than Kaiousei and EJ, so I move on. Thank you guys for helping out here!

[rogue_red]

This is a really good point and many astrologers have argued this point especially when it comes to which house system to use. There are house systems that use midpoints, some that use an overlapping graduation house system. This article may interest you. This is a topic that greatly interests me and i think that at the end of the day you will have to decide for yourself which house system and their relevent focal points have accuracy for you based on your own studies.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6495552/An...ouse-Formulary

[wilsontc]

Squapius,

You asked:

Originally Posted by Squapius

If the house is a point, I should take it as a focus, not the beggining and end of a limited space determined by the cusp of the house in question and the cusp of the next house, respectively...(its cusp) I should take it as a focus of irradiation...Mars is placed inside the ASC, taking the ASC as the whole bunch of degrees that finds its beggining in the ASC cusp (17º aries) and ending in the cusp of the 2nd house (5º taurus)...Then it would have to be some place where the energies of the two points blend. Or not?

First of all, a house is not a point and a point is not a house. A cusp is a special point: a cusp is the point that begins one house and ends another house. For example, the Ascendant is the point where the 1rst house begins and the 12th house ends, and also where the 12th house begins and the 1rst house ends (more on this later). So it makes no sense to talk about Mars "inside the Ascendant", since NOTHING can be "inside" a point (since a point, by definition, has no width). And, similarly, since the Ascendant is a point (and has no width) it can only be ONE degree not a "whole bunch of degrees."

So let's take a look at this idea of a cusp beign a "focus of irradiation" or, in other words, the cusp is a point that is "sensitive" on either side of it. Let's use for an example the Ascendant. On one side of this point (i.e., the Ascendant) is the beginning of the 1rst house and on the other the end of the 12th house. We can think of the Ascendant as a kind of "door" that opens into the 1rst house "room" from the 12th house "room". So when we step THROUGH the "door" from the 12th house we enter the 1rst house "room". And, looking the other way, when we step through the door of the 1rst house "room" we enter the 12th house "room". But what happens when we are standing IN the doorway between the houses? At this time we can argue that we are in BOTH the 1rst house "room" AND the 12th house "room". Turning this back into our example of the Ascendant, there is an area around the Ascendant which is focused on BOTH the 12th house AND the 1rst house. And any planet or point in the middle of this "doorway" has a focus on BOTH houses.

This means that the house focus of a planet or point gets STRONGER as it moves AWAY from the cusp. Going to your diagram of the 15 dgree 41 minute Ascendant, the "red zone" around this Ascendant is the area in the middle of the "doorway" and has the focus on BOTH houses. Continuing this idea, the house focus goes a little bit BEYOND the cusp on either side of it: so the 1rst house focus extends a little into the 12th house and the 12th house focus extends a little into the 1rst house. What this means is that if we COMBINE your "Grey zone" pictures, we get an answer. Using your diagram the house is "strongly grey" your first picture for the area AWAY from the cusp. One the house gets near the "cusp area", the "strongly grey" focused area becomes more "lightly grey", indicating it is becoming influenced by the house that it is next to.

So when a planet or point gets next to a house cusp it has a "blended" influence from BOTH houses on either side of it.

Long-windedly,

Tim

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

So it makes no sense to talk about Mars "inside the Ascendant", since NOTHING can be "inside" a point (since a point, by definition, has no width).

That's actually not true, "ascendant" and "first house" are used pretty interchangeably in several older texts. Since, the ascendant sets the mark for the beginning of that house and all, planets "inside" of it are inside of its house.

But what happens when we are standing IN the doorway between the houses? At this time we can argue that we are in BOTH the 1rst house "room" AND the 12th house "room".

Now Tim, this is just ridiculous. I'm really getting tired of this whole "let's mess with all the cusps and make this concept of being in both places at once". Because obviously, planets can be in two houses of a chart at once. Just like they can be in two different Signs and all that. The truth of the matter is that planets apply to house cusps. Or have we conveniently forgotten that aspect of astrological mechanics?

This means that the house focus of a planet or point gets STRONGER as it moves AWAY from the cusp.

Well, that definitely runs contrary to everything I've read concerning the houses. The cusp isn't a mixing point, it's a cut-off. This isn't just a traditional thing, even astro.com (who can hardly be counted as traditional) interprets planets applying to house cusps as in the house they are applying to with no connection to the house it is separating from.

[astrologer50]

Well just to add my two-penneth then, in Equal Hous system the 2nd house cusp will be same as 1st ie: 17' degree Taurus and the Mars will definately be in 1st house anyways......

So again its worth studying and researching, to see whats of value to you, cos with unequal house systems and placidus its ALL about house cusps and planets moving from one house to another.....

[wilsontc]

Kai,

You said:

Originally Posted by Kaiousei no Senshi

"ascendant" and "first house" are used pretty interchangeably in several older texts. Since, the ascendant sets the mark for the beginning of that house and all, planets "inside" of it are inside of its house.

I hadn't heard this before. Then I clarify my point by adding that according to MODERN astrology the Ascendant is a point and a planet can't be "in" the Ascendant. Traditional astrology has different rules.

Clarifying,

Tim

[rogue_red]

Originally Posted by Kaiousei no Senshi

Well, that definitely runs contrary to everything I've read concerning the houses. The cusp isn't a mixing point, it's a cut-off. This isn't just a traditional thing, even astro.com (who can hardly be counted as traditional) interprets planets applying to house cusps as in the house they are applying to with no connection to the house it is separating from.

Ok Kaiousei, please dont get grumpy with me as i am just learning but I have a couple of questions. Being that planets are three dimensional and therefore so is their influence how can a cusp just cut off that planets influence as soon as it begins its journey through that house. How are we or anyone for that matter supposed to know where to interpret that planets influence if say neptune is at 28 degrees of house a? Some say an orb of 5 degrees before a house cusp? Im so confused.

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

Ok Kaiousei, please dont get grumpy with me as i am just learning but I have a couple of questions.

Well, I'm not meaning to come off as grumpy. I'm sort of having a bad day, and I have been rather disappointed by some people, so I'm sorry if I come off as grumpy. I am looking forward to bed, though. Hopefully tomorrow will be a better day.

Being that planets are three dimensional and therefore so is their influence how can a cusp just cut off that planets influence as soon as it begins its journey through that house.

I'm sorry. Who ever said that the influence of a planet is "three dimensional"? That just seems to reek of New Aged goodness and I wouldn't put much to it. Anyway, the answer to this question is the same as if it were a Sign. We don't interpret a planet early or late in a Sign as having characteristics of both Signs (or at least, I and anyone who was studying astrology prior to the 1930s doesn't). A planet is either in a Sign, or it's not, and that's pretty much all there is to it at that. Granted, there are some instances where the first and last three degrees of a Sign have some important characteristics, but that doesn't change the character of a planet.

Apply the same thing with a house, except it gets 5° before it as the orb of a non-luminous object.

How are we or anyone for that matter supposed to know where to interpret that planets influence if say neptune is at 28 degrees of house a?

Um...by counting? I didn't think "five degrees before" was a complicated concept to adopt. Planets applying to house cusps are considered to be in the house they are applying to. It's about like asking "Who are we to say what the orbs of a planet are?" It's something that's been tackled long before us and information handed down to us.

Maybe it's just that I've accepted this long ago and applied this that I don't understand where the confusion lies. I'm sorry if I'm just making it worse, but I'm really trying to understand where this is all coming from so I can answer the major question that's messing everything up.

[rogue_red]

Originally Posted by Kaiousei no Senshi

Well, I'm not meaning to come off as grumpy. I'm sort of having a bad day, and I have been rather disappointed by some people, so I'm sorry if I come off as grumpy. I am looking forward to bed, though. Hopefully tomorrow will be a better day.



I'm sorry. Who ever said that the influence of a planet is "three dimensional"? That just seems to reek of New Aged goodness and I wouldn't put much to it. Anyway, the answer to this question is the same as if it were a Sign. We don't interpret a planet early or late in a Sign as having characteristics of both Signs (or at least, I and anyone who was studying astrology prior to the 1930s doesn't). A planet is either in a Sign, or it's not, and that's pretty much all there is to it at that. Granted, there are some instances where the first and last three degrees of a Sign have some important characteristics, but that doesn't change the character of a planet.

Apply the same thing with a house, except it gets 5° before it as the orb of a non-luminous object.



Um...by counting? I didn't think "five degrees before" was a complicated concept to adopt. Planets applying to house cusps are considered to be in the house they are applying to. It's about like asking "Who are we to say what the orbs of a planet are?" It's something that's been tackled long before us and information handed down to us.

Maybe it's just that I've accepted this long ago and applied this that I don't understand where the confusion lies. I'm sorry if I'm just making it worse, but I'm really trying to understand where this is all coming from so I can answer the major question that's messing everything up.

Ok firstly, I dont appreciate your manner.! I am trying to teach myself astrology, im just an ordinary every day mum of five so you just need to mind your manners thankyou. Your tone is condescending and rude.
Now that I have got that off my chest I have some points to bring up. You said

I'm sorry. Who ever said that the influence of a planet is "three dimensional"? That just seems to reek of New Aged goodness and I wouldn't put much to it.

Speaking from a scientific point of veiw im sure we are in agreement that astrology is an art based on the science of astronomy yes? Ok good. Now do you also agree that a planet has a gravitational influence on earth that is measureable and proven. Ok so we are on the same page. So its pretty safe to conclude the the gravitational influence of planets is three dimensional. The gravitational influence radiates outwards from the planet in all directions. My question was regarding that influence in respect to house cusps.
Secondly when i asked

How are we or anyone for that matter supposed to know where to interpret that planets influence if say neptune is at 28 degrees of house a? Some say an orb of 5 degrees before a house cusp? Im so confused.

you said

Um...by counting? I didn't think "five degrees before" was a complicated concept to adopt.

Now Im going to give you the benifit of the doubt and assume you misunderstood me. What I was asking is this. Is the technique of interpreting a planets astrological influence according to the house cusp its applying to a long held habit or is there some reasoning and logic behind it. Have you just accepted that a planet within 5 degrees of a house cusp is interpreted in the applying house because the ancients said so? This wouldnt be the same ancients that said the earth was flat were they?
I dont settle for "because I told you so" answers. There needs to be a reason...

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

Ok firstly, I dont appreciate your manner.! I am trying to teach myself astrology, im just an ordinary every day mum of five so you just need to mind your manners thankyou. Your tone is condescending and rude.

And I'm just a college student trying to teach himself astrology. Now that we understand each other.

Speaking from a scientific point of veiw im sure we are in agreement that astrology is an art based on the science of astronomy yes?

Okay, sure. More like they were the same thing until they became separated later on, but yeah, okay, I'll agree with the basic idea.

Ok good. Now do you also agree that a planet has a gravitational influence on earth that is measureable and proven. Ok so we are on the same page. So its pretty safe to conclude the the gravitational influence of planets is three dimensional. The gravitational influence radiates outwards from the planet in all directions. My question was regarding that influence in respect to house cusps.

We're not even reading the same book on this one. You seem to have adopted the theory that astrology works because of the gravitational influences of the planets on the earth. I can understand this to some degree, and I'm definitely not going to even attempt to refute the effects of the sun and moon's gravitational forces on the earth, however, science will tell you that the gravitational effect of the other planet's on the earth is negligible, and also if you're going to follow this idea, then I'd love to see the astrological significance of the international space station since it to exerts some influence on the earth.

You're basing your view of all of this on the idea that gravity is what makes astrology work when there's no proof behind this when extend beyond the sun and moon.

Is the technique of interpreting a planets astrological influence according to the house cusp its applying to a long held habit or is there some reasoning and logic behind it. Have you just accepted that a planet within 5 degrees of a house cusp is interpreted in the applying house because the ancients said so?

Because, a planet within five degrees of a house cusp is considered applying to that house in orb. It's the same concept as a faster planet conjoining a slower planet, 'cept with a house cusp.

This wouldnt be the same ancients that said the earth was flat were they?

Eh, maybe, but it would also be the same ancients who popularized the ideas of holistic and herbal medicine which has shown to be much more effective than was once thought and who could calculate astronomical events thousands of years in the future.

Hardly kindergarten stuff. This whole "old = outdated" thing is just beyond me.

[astrologer50]

Kaiousei no senshi

I agree with most of your comments regarding house cusps, But would add that if a planet is in a house, then ITS in, whether its early or late the first interpretation is in that house, but if its late, the influence can be carried over and has a foot hold in next house also, therefore affecting, contributing, flavouring next house........

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

Well, I would agree and disagree with that. Certainly if a planet is in a house, it's in a house. It can't be in two houses, and so should be interpreted as only being in one house. The only reason I could see confusion is with the whole "five degrees" thing.

"What? Each house is separate? But how come each house has five degrees before its cusp as considered inside of it? Certainly they aren't separate if they're annexing space from one another."

To which the answer is.

"House cusps have an orb of five degrees as a non-luminous point. So, they have an orb of influence (like any planet) that extends on either side. When a planet is within five degrees before that cusp, it's applying to that cusp, so is under the influence of that house."

"Ah, applying aspects within orb. Of course, of course"

I don't know about the house carry over thing. It reminds me far too much of Chiero and his "born on a cusp" stuff he came up with.

[astrologer50]

Originally Posted by Kaiousei no Senshi

Well, I would agree and disagree with that. Certainly if a planet is in a house, it's in a house. It can't be in two houses, and so should be interpreted as only being in one house. The only reason I could see confusion is with the whole "five degrees" thing.

"What? Each house is separate? But how come each house has five degrees before its cusp as considered inside of it? Certainly they aren't separate if they're annexing space from one another."

To which the answer is.

"House cusps have an orb of five degrees as a non-luminous point. So, they have an orb of influence (like any planet) that extends on either side. When a planet is within five degrees before that cusp, it's applying to that cusp, so is under the influence of that house."

"Ah, applying aspects within orb. Of course, of course"

I don't know about the house carry over thing. It reminds me far too much of Chiero and his "born on a cusp" stuff he came up with.

So are you saying that if a planet is 5' conj end of house cusp you wouldnt give it credance in that house, just merely the next house then???

[rogue_red]

Originally Posted by Kaiousei no Senshi

And I'm just a college student trying to teach himself astrology. Now that we understand each other.



Okay, sure. More like they were the same thing until they became separated later on, but yeah, okay, I'll agree with the basic idea.



We're not even reading the same book on this one. You seem to have adopted the theory that astrology works because of the gravitational influences of the planets on the earth. I can understand this to some degree, and I'm definitely not going to even attempt to refute the effects of the sun and moon's gravitational forces on the earth, however, science will tell you that the gravitational effect of the other planet's on the earth is negligible, and also if you're going to follow this idea, then I'd love to see the astrological significance of the international space station since it to exerts some influence on the earth.

You're basing your view of all of this on the idea that gravity is what makes astrology work when there's no proof behind this when extend beyond the sun and moon.



Because, a planet within five degrees of a house cusp is considered applying to that house in orb. It's the same concept as a faster planet conjoining a slower planet, 'cept with a house cusp.



Eh, maybe, but it would also be the same ancients who popularized the ideas of holistic and herbal medicine which has shown to be much more effective than was once thought and who could calculate astronomical events thousands of years in the future.

Hardly kindergarten stuff. This whole "old = outdated" thing is just beyond me.

See this is where a little bit of knowlege is a dangerous thing
I apologise for the sarcasm in my previous post.
I wasnt suggesting that all of astrology was based simply on the gravitational pull of the planets but certainly all planets radiate gravitational forces and energy does not disappear, it just changes form. I would not be surprised to find out that there was some other form of energy as yet undiscovered but thats just the wanderings of my tired mind. I dont for a minute think that old=outdated. I was being a smartarse. My issue isnt based on the five degree orb, its more around the fact no one can tell me definitively which house system is right. Couple this with the fact that between the varying house systems my house cusps vary from 25-3 degrees makes the 5 deg orb inconsequential really. That was why i thought that blended interpretation for planets on house cusps was more appropriate.

[wilsontc]

Kaiousei,

You said:

Originally Posted by Kaiousei no Senshi

Planets applying to house cusps are considered to be in the house they are applying to...Maybe it's just that I've accepted this long ago

To me this says a planet is NOT IN the next house (i.e., it is "applying" to the next house which means it is NOT in the next house yet) so it IS IN the next house (i.e., it is considered to be in the house it is applying to). This never made any sense to me. So I simply added in the missing part: the applying planet influences the NEXT house (i.e., the house it is applying to) AND the house it is in. I guess this is because I never "accept" things, but have to run it past my "common sense". If it doesn't make sense, then I have to figure out what the problem is. And planets NOT in a house are ONLY in the NEXT house has NEVER made any sense to me.

Nonsensically innovative,

Tim

[RayAustin]

Hear, ye, hear ye! Order in the court! *hits gabble*

Not trying to add more coal to the fire but --
I don't understand the difficulty?
Supposedly the cusp is the most powerful point of the house. Therefore, any planet within five degrees of it is baring the most influence to that particular house, and is therefore in that house.

If it was visually in the fourth house but conjunct the fifth cusp, then it it is really in the fifth house, as it's far away from the 4th house cusp and then negiglible in its influence to that particular house.

So what are we debating about?