PDA

View Full Version : A doubt about Whole sign houses


A Yian
03-23-2014, 06:19 AM
I require your help, I've been studying the traditional whole sign houses system, and a I have a question. A man with the Ascendant at 27° of Sagitarious. Even with that Ascendent so close to the end of the sign, is all Sagitarious the I house? and how do we use the degree of the Ascendant in this case?


Thanks for your answers.

mdinaz
03-23-2014, 02:39 PM
In whole sign the entire sign occupies the house, even if a planet is at the end of a sign. An aspect to another planet is done by sign rather than by degree. The ASC is treated like any other planet or point but is still that house it is in. I don't use whole sign for that reason but there are others here who use it exclusively and can answer that better.

JUPITERASC
03-23-2014, 02:40 PM
I require your help, I've been studying the traditional whole sign houses system, and a I have a question.

A man with the Ascendant at 27° of Sagitarious.
Even with that Ascendent so close to the end of the sign, is all Sagitarious the I house?

and how do we use the degree of the Ascendant in this case?


Thanks for your answers.
As dr. farr now explains, the meaning of the word 'cusp'/'cusps' is crucial in this context and dr. farr has provided a definitive answer :smile:
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...
By the way, the house location of any natal planet is entirely dependent on the house system chosen
a fact easily verified by using a selection of any of the fourteen different house systems on offer at astro.com's Extended Chart Selection Page

EXPLANATORY ASTROLOGICAL HOUSES ARTICLE http://www.librarising.com/astrology/misc/wholesignhouses.html


QUOTE

'...In no other area of astrology is there so much mess and confusion than in the area of the so-called "houses".
There are at least twenty or thirty different house systems
or means of dividing the so-called "birthchart" into twelve segments of life activity.
In astrology, houses, mansions, or domains, represent general areas of life activity
and are the grounding areas or arenas of expression for planets.
Originally, the words "houses" and "signs" were interchangeable
or meant the same thing.
A planet in Aries was also a planet in the house of Aries,
so that in effect. there were no real houses as we know them today....'


'….Artificial divisions now known as houses
were attempts by early Greeks and Hindus to measure strength "points" in the horoscope,
which during 7th and 8th centuries AD were construed
or confused
as means of dividing the birth chart.
The ascendant and midheaven degrees and their opposites, for example,
were definite power points or areas of intense focus,
but not necessarily the beginnings of a house or quadrant.
In fact, there is no real basis for the astrological houses at all.
They derive from a misunderstanding of the true nature of the Ascendant and Midheaven factors in astrology,
Ascendant representing Earth/terrestial sphere, and Midheaven representing Sky/Heaven /celestial sphere....'


'...If any house system should be used at all, it should be the Whole Sign House system, where the ascendant sign becomes the whole first house and the others follow. Ascendant point can then fall anywhere in the first house and the midheaven point anywhere in the upper half of the chart. The Whole Sign House system was used by the ancient Greeks and the Hindus(who still use it today). It is the oldest and simplest house system in existence, and immediately eliminates the awful mess astrologers have made on the issue over the last 1300 years or so....'


WHOLE SIGN OR PLACIDUS? http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39669 is an in-depth discussion on this matter

Drsendero
03-23-2014, 03:30 PM
Yes, in the example you give all of Sagittarius is the first house, so 0 degrees Capricorn would be the beginning of the second house even though it is close to the Ascendant.

Using this example above, I think you'll find some astrologers who would consider a planet that is within its orb of conjunction with the Ascendant to have an effect upon the first house, even though it is technically in the second house as per your example. The same would probably apply if the Ascendant were 0 of a sign and there was a planet at the very end of the preceding sign, technically in the 12th whole sign house but within orb of a conjunction with the Ascendant. But, I'm not sure there's agreement on that amongst those who use whole sign houses though.

drsendero

A Yian
03-23-2014, 04:16 PM
thank You for your answers.

Then, it doesn't matter that 27º, 28º or 29º of a sign is ascending, all that sign is the first house.

... But in that case the most of the 1st sign is in the apparent position of the XII House, does it matter? Have it some interpretation in this system?

JUPITERASC
03-23-2014, 04:50 PM
thank You for your answers.

Then, it doesn't matter that 27º, 28º or 29º of a sign is ascending, all that sign is the first house.
Exactly.
That is the meaning of 'Whole Sign Houses'
i.e.
to be clear then
and confirm clearly:

it doesn't matter that
27º, 28º or 29º of a sign is ascending,
all that sign is the first house
one entire whole complete sign = one entire whole complete house :smile:

Larxene
03-23-2014, 05:10 PM
Just to confirm dr. farr's opinion, I checked the history of this word: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cusp

It appears he was right!

Anyway, I've only worked with very few charts but I found the system to be quite accurate (there was one chart where I compared Equal House and Whole Signs, and Whole Signs gave the better prediction, but that's only one chart and can hardly be empirically sound).

At first I worked with the system because it made my chart look better :P. But later I realised that a Whole Signs chart was quite elegant and beautiful. I thought it was an idealised version of one's chart, but I was wrong. In fact, the reason why quadrant houses supplanted it was because it was less precise. It is an elegant system and yet more imperfect than quadrant houses.

But this meshes well with the philosophy that I follow, which is loosely based on Platonic philosophy: the Ideal Forms are more real than what exists in our world of being and becoming, our "reality". In my opinion, the world is designed in such a way that it is perfectly imperfect. As such, nothing in this world can maintain the essence of the Ideal Forms eternally; eventually the form of the matter changes.

The Whole Signs system mimics both the perfection of the Ideal Forms and the imperfection of this world. Every house is exactly 30 degrees, aspects are determined by sign relationships (which always have the same number of degrees). On the other hand, many charts will look the same because this system isn't sensitive to the angles. Also, we end up with some unique and weird positions, like Sun in the 1st house by day and Sun in the 7th house by night.

One other reason to use Whole Signs is when you do not know the birth time exactly. The same insensitivity to the cusps may ironically help us determine the right houses for the planets to be in.


Okay, rant over. /endrant

waybread
03-23-2014, 05:35 PM
Traditional astrologers used a variety of house systems, but the whole sign system seems to have been the earliest one used by Hellenistic astrologers. By late Antiquity, they seem to have used equal houses and Porphyry systems for some types of interpretation.

Regiomontanus houses are preferred by many horary astrologers. Placidus, Alcibitus, Campanus, &c. also, would have to be considered "traditional" house systems. These would be called "quadrant" or "unequal house" systems, which do put the angles as the beginning of houses.

As others have noted, an ascendant degree late in a sign is still the ascendant. You would use this degree to calculate the Part of Fortune, for example. But any planet in the entire sign would be considered angular and in the first house, even at an earlier degree.

I think it is helpful to play around with different house systems, and see which one gives you the best results. For example, if your ascendant is at 27 Sagittarius, and you have other planets in earlier degrees of Sagittarius, you should be able to tell whether they feel more like first house or 12th house planets to you.

Then I agree with Larxene. If I don't have an accurate birth time (yet can readily narrow it down within one sign) it makes sense to use whole signs: the precision entailed by Placidus or Koch systems, for example, could be bogus.

JUPITERASC
03-23-2014, 05:54 PM
BobZemco has not posted for some time, however he did leave us with this apposite comment on the topic of Whole Sign Houses :smile:


Astrology was originally Whole Sign Houses,
in part because they didn't have "0" or the higher order math to derive House Cusps.

Yes, "0" existed but only as a place holder
(the Sumerian sexigesimal system is 10 and 60 and from that we get 360° and 12 hour days, 12 hour nights, 60' in an hour or degree, 60" in a minute of time or arc etc).


....I usually post charts in Regiomontanus plus people seem to have access to that House System on software or the internet,
and they don't always seem to have access to Alcabitius which is what I've been using the past 4-5 years for nearly all charts.

I use Whole Sign now that I'm using Arabic Parts
because they were developed using Whole Sign or Alcabitius
and they do not work with any other House Systems,
and that's especially true for the Part of Substance (similar to the Part of Fortune), Part of Death and Part of Enemies
which are calculated based on the House Cusps, so House System is important to get the correct position of the Part or Lot.

Bonatti, Zael (ibn Sahl), Masha'allah, Abu'mashar and al-Qabasi seem to have switched back and forth between Whole Sign and Alcabitius and since I follow them, that's what I use.

Zarathu
03-23-2014, 06:39 PM
Its important to note that not all house systems were available to all astrologers in antiquity.

For example, William Lilly was not able to even try to use Placidus during his life time in England. Placidus wasn't translated(yeah I know how much translation do numbers require?, but somebody had to compile it and publish it in a real book) into english or at least wasn't available to England until 1812. So while Wm Lilly is quoted as preferring Regiomontanus, the reality is that Regiomontanus is apparently the only house system he had available.

Its a common misconception that all the different house systems were available to everyone all the time from the beginning. Many astrologers before 1960 had to use what they had, and many times, what they had was whatever book they could find. Remember they had to be compiled and printed.

Even in the USA, quite honestly it was hard to find anything but Placidus in the 1970's. And when I was having to pay an exorbitant $10 back then(when my weekly food bill was only $22), my willingness to look around for more books of tables to try was limited too.

waybread
03-23-2014, 06:56 PM
Good points, Zarathu!

And sadly, anglophones sometimes forget that active astrologers in continental Europe were practising in Italy, Germany, France, &c in other languages, including Latin. Previously in Arabic and Persian.

If anyone is seriously interested in houses, this article by Michael Munkasey is really good: http://www.scribd.com/doc/6495552/An-Astrological-House-Formulary In terms of which house system is "best" he wrote:

"... use that house system which divides space in such a way that the planets fall into houses which describe their function in the nature of the event; and, use that house system which gives cusps against which you can time events. That is, if the Moon function of this event is described well by a Moon in the eighth house, then the house system you choose should not place the Moon in ... some house other than the eighth house. Also, if subsequent events can not be timed to the house cusps derived mathematically and plotted on the horoscope,then choose some other house system."

In other words, find the right tool for the job. Munkasey said that he prefers Placidus for most charts simply because the cusps give him the best timing. Not everyone does predictive astrology, however, so for character analysis, whole signs might work fine.

Also, Hellenistic astrologers who used whole signs had other methods for timing major life events.

JUPITERASC
03-23-2014, 07:27 PM
A Yian, there is detailed discussion likely to be of interest to you,
a topic started by Deborah Houlding on Skyscript
VALENS: EQUAL HOUSES NOT WHOLE SIGN http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8120

Mark comments

QUOTE

'......Hi Deb,

In an old post I recall you highlighted another section of the Anthology
that demonstrates Valens not only utilised Porphyry houses
but also seemed to have assigned the idea of topics to these houses.


Mark Riley’s translation states:

' Quote:

'It is necessary to calculate likewise from MC, and to consider the first third of the distance between angles as operative, the second third, following MC, as of average influence (thus it was called Good Daimon by the ancients), and the last third, up to the Ascendant, as afflicting and inoperative. The Places in opposition to these will have the same force. Orion expounded all this in his book’’ The Anthology, (III.2)


While Schmidt and his followers
(Hand, Brennan etc)
have argued the Valens use of Porphyry houses
was exclusively for length of life calculation :smile:

you have raised the valid question why is Valens calling this place from the MC 'Good Daimon' if that is so? That doesn't sound like just a strength sector otherwise why is Valens using the name of a particular topic i.e. house? ......'

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/Vettius%20Valens%20entire.pdf VETTIUS VALENS THE ANTHOLOGY free translation by Professor Riley available online

waybread
03-23-2014, 07:53 PM
JA, as you know, I participated on that thread. I constructed five of Valens's horoscopes from books 2 and 5 using his planetary placements and the dates for them calculated by Neugebauer and Van Hoesen in their Greek Horoscopes monograph. (I had to move their days one earlier to get them to work out with Valens's chart placements.)

I found no evidence that Valens used anything other than whole signs for the 5 horoscopes I constructed. In fact, because some of the planets came out in late or early degrees of his signs, and because most of the ascendants required an early degree for the rest of his chart to work out, Valens either used whole signs or else it would be a moot point whether he might have favoured equal houses.

Later in his Anthologies, Valens is more particular about giving planets' degrees, but then these aren't the parts of his book where he gives sufficient information on houses to see where he placed his planets. In the majority of his horoscopes Valens does not give a MC degree, so we don't know whether he used a quadrant system or simply (as I concluded) merely counted 10 signs from his ascendant. The only way I could get some of his Part of Fortune placements to work out was by realizing that he was using the traditional day- and night-birth formulas, but he was counting by sign number, rather than by degree.

Then Valens did use a derived house system (similar to one cited by Manilius) where he set the first house equal to the P of F, and then counted houses from that point to determine career success.

As with other classical authors, we see house meanings based on whether a planet falls into an angular, fixed, or cadent house; and an overlay based upon descriptive house meanings.

I invited the other participants on that post to identify any horoscopes in Valens that used degrees plus enough house names or numbers that it would be possible more accurately to ascertain whether he used a quadrant or equal house system for some of his calculations. So far, no takers.

Valens described a couple of other house division systems, but whether he actually used them himself is a difficult question to answer.

mdinaz
03-23-2014, 08:14 PM
Its important to note that not all house systems were available to all astrologers in antiquity.

For example, William Lilly was not able to even try to use Placidus during his life time in England. Placidus wasn't translated(yeah I know how much translation do numbers require?, but somebody had to compile it and publish it in a real book) into english or at least wasn't available to England until 1812. So while Wm Lilly is quoted as preferring Regiomontanus, the reality is that Regiomontanus is apparently the only house system he had available.

Its a common misconception that all the different house systems were available to everyone all the time from the beginning. Many astrologers before 1960 had to use what they had and many times what they had was whatever book the could find. Remember they had to be compiled and printed.

Even in the USA, quite honestly it was hard to find anything but Placidus in the 1970's. And when I was having to pay an exorbitant $10 back then(when my weekly food bill was only $22), my willingness to look around for more books of tables to try was limited too.

That is such a glaringly obvious point that we all missed to make it. I feel the same way in the all the discussions about whether outer planets and asteroids or other points are useful or not; the typical argument is that "classical astrologers didn't use them and it was good enough for them so why should I?". This is akin to never driving a car because a great man like George Washington never drove one either and he did fine without it and beat the British to boot.

If a person can demonstrate skill and great usefulness is using such points and houses, or not, is all fine and dandy. To eschew them solely because someone in the past did not use them is silly. For all we know Wm Lilly would have used nothing but Placidus or even Koch had it been available to him or the ability to calculate points in milliseconds had a computer been available to him as well. This doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the old methods; many people use them and love them even after trying the new ones. I'm a gun owner and I've owned everything from black powder guns to modern semi-autos. I still prefer 19th-century style metal cartridge weapons over modern semi-autos, but not because Jesse James or somebody used them and it was good enough for him - I like the solid, reliable mechanisms that don't jam or damage easily. In astrology I like the newer methods even though I have tried the old ones too. But the important thing is to check them all out and see what fits your style and requirements.

JUPITERASC
03-23-2014, 08:39 PM
as well as studying Valens in depth with Robert Schmidt who has published an alternative translation of Valens via Project Hindsight http://www.projecthindsight.com/ Zoidsoft has also developed an acclaimed Hellenistic astrology software program details of which are viewable at http://www.astrology-x-files.com/

Zoidsoft posts on page 2 of Deborah Houlding's thread as follows:

QUOTE

'…...Valens used more than one house system depending upon what the technique was which has been clear for some time. When it comes to counting lots and judging topics and judging trigon lords for eminence it appears that he is using whole signs, especially when counting from fortune (personally I think when trigon lords happen to be exactly on an angle by degree, that this adds to the level of eminence particularly if it is also angular by whole sign). You can see this from the examples that Valens gives from both the Riley and Schmidt translations. Now there are places where Valens does use degrees, but it seems odd that there is no mention of degree positions early in the texts when talking about eminence considerations......' .........###### In the Schmidt translations start at book 2 part 1, pg 33 or the Riley translation on pg 12 of book 2. (the Riley translation I have counts pages continuously to 493 and doesn't start over at each chapter and has some strange duplicated content where Valens describes combinations of 2 planets and 3 planets early on).
*** With Valens it is important to look at what he does in the examples, not just at what he says.



'…..The problem as I mentioned before is the meaning of the word "kentron"in Greek which has 2 principal meanings: one is to goad or prod into action, and the other is "a center of activity where something revolves around".
In the first case, it seems that the closer the planet is to the angle, the more "goaded" or "prodded" it is toward action. Schmidt calls this "motivated".
In the other case, a center of activity such as an "agora" acts as a place where business can be conducted for a given planet in a guest / host relationship, the important consideration is the casting of rays and whether the domicile/exaltation lord can perform the oikodektor function.....'


'…..So the answer to
does Valens use whole signs or quadrant houses or equal houses?
Is:

It depends upon what techniques he is using. Schmidt has said that he believes that this is where the confusion of house division originated.....'

waybread
03-23-2014, 09:41 PM
Curtis and I were in agreement. Valens relies heavily on the strength or weakness of a house according to its position relative to its appropriate angle. The 5th, 9th, and 11th houses are also strong, however.

In the examples where Valens focuses more on particular techniques involving calculations from particular points to others, you really can't tell what house system he was using. What he wrote to his students and his actual methods in chart construction and interpretation are sometimes different.

Zarathu
03-23-2014, 10:18 PM
Michael Meyer, in his HANDBOOK FOR THE HUMANISTIC ASTROLOGER,
which is decidedly not traditional, does provide an interesting summary of a whole bunch of houses.

On the basis of this I used Porphyry for quite sometime until I discovered Astrodynes(another decidedly not traditional technique) and switched to Placidus solely and simply because that system was normed on Placidus.

Anyways,

Meyer(and many others, no specialness with this system) breaks the systems into two divisions:

The Equal House Division and the Quadrant Division.

The Equal House system was used by astrologers before the employment of the meridian. Its simpler and when Meyer wrote the book 40 years ago he comments on several famous though somewhat forgotten now astrologer who were using it.

The Quadrant House Division divides the 360 degrees of the ecliptic into 12 equal sections of SPACE or TIME.

Placidus divides by the TIME needed for the Sun to cover the space between quadrants. Meyer considers this to be less than useful since he sees the birth chart as only a space thingie where time is actually frozen.

Regiomontanus is a space system. It determines the cusps of the 12 houses by the equal division of the space along the celestial equator into 12 equal parts, relating them to the ecliptic

Campanus is another space system It determines the house cusps by dividing the space along the prime vertical(which links the MH and the nadir) into 12 equal parts and relating them to the ecliptic.

The Porphyry system. It determines the house cups by dividing the space of the quadrants into three equal sections along the ecliptic.
Meyer likes this one and spends a lot of time talking about how it combines the best of two systems .

With computer programs, we can now use any system we like. I can use 10 different ones with my primary program and I can even make one up to my own specifications. In the other program, I have all these, plus I can make sure that the PF or any planet is on the cusp of the 1st house. There are some in this secondary program that I've never hear of, or that I can imagine using for any reason.

sworm09
03-23-2014, 10:22 PM
Just to confirm dr. farr's opinion, I checked the history of this word: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cusp

It appears he was right!

Anyway, I've only worked with very few charts but I found the system to be quite accurate (there was one chart where I compared Equal House and Whole Signs, and Whole Signs gave the better prediction, but that's only one chart and can hardly be empirically sound).

At first I worked with the system because it made my chart look better :P. But later I realised that a Whole Signs chart was quite elegant and beautiful. I thought it was an idealised version of one's chart, but I was wrong. In fact, the reason why quadrant houses supplanted it was because it was less precise. It is an elegant system and yet more imperfect than quadrant houses.

But this meshes well with the philosophy that I follow, which is loosely based on Platonic philosophy: the Ideal Forms are more real than what exists in our world of being and becoming, our "reality". In my opinion, the world is designed in such a way that it is perfectly imperfect. As such, nothing in this world can maintain the essence of the Ideal Forms eternally; eventually the form of the matter changes.

The Whole Signs system mimics both the perfection of the Ideal Forms and the imperfection of this world. Every house is exactly 30 degrees, aspects are determined by sign relationships (which always have the same number of degrees). On the other hand, many charts will look the same because this system isn't sensitive to the angles. Also, we end up with some unique and weird positions, like Sun in the 1st house by day and Sun in the 7th house by night.

One other reason to use Whole Signs is when you do not know the birth time exactly. The same insensitivity to the cusps may ironically help us determine the right houses for the planets to be in.


Okay, rant over. /endrant

Larxene please stop making such good posts :biggrin:

I can agree to this idea, almost 100%; whole sign houses are pretty, they're beautiful and they're clean. They give sharp, clear and direct interpretations, but they lack some of the precision of the quadrant houses. That's why you use them both :)

A planet may be in your 10th house in whole signs showing honor and a high reputation, but in quadrant houses that same planet may be in your 9th, showing that that honor and high reputation comes in academic matters.

Your profection by whole sign may be in your 8th whole sign houses showing anxiety and depression, but in your 7th house by quadrant showing that the anxiety and depression relates to relationships.

A transiting planet may be in your 9th whole sign house showing a journey, but in your 8th quadrant house showing that that journey is met with significant anxiety and difficulty.

I remember reading Valens using houses like this (if I remember correctly) and though it can be criticized for being too complicated, I feel like it's almost necessary.

When BobZemeco was still running around these parts, he used to stress that signs carry significance over houses, but he never outright said ignore the house. His logic was that, for example, the 6th sign will always be in aversion to the Ascendant and will always carry those significations of illness despite the actual house cusp.

From my limited awareness, I think of it this way; the signs, through their configuration with the Ascendant, show us our lives in a very clean, direct, and clear manner, like zooming out on a picture. Since the house cusps slice up the signs, they therefore show what the signs represent in much more concrete, precise terms.

In my opinion using whole signs without quadrant houses as a compliment is like missing a great many of the more precise details of a story, using quadrant houses without whole signs is like having all of the details without a backdrop or context to put them into.

If you're trying to get the most out of combining the two Porphyry is a fantastic quadrant based system (if you want to call it that) to compliment whole signs; it retains the connection to the Ascendant but still allows for quadrants. Of course any quadrant system could work with whole signs (I use Regio due to following Lilly)....just pay attention to the signs :)

Another thing; as BobZemeco used to say, it's smart to use the house system that your teacher is using. At least to begin. This doesn't only apply to live teachers, but also authors of books. If you're following Lilly, use Regiomantus, Bonatti, Alcabitius, Raphael, Placidus etc.etc.

When you combine the clear and direct nature of whole sign houses with the precision and detail of quadrant houses, you get some scarily accurate, and detailed delineations, in my experience at least.

JUPITERASC
03-23-2014, 10:32 PM
A YianZ Zoidsoft makes some excellent comments. For example, when Deb wrote: I can’t help thinking that the confusion originated with some categoric statements published prematurely, and a lack of distinction between speculation and fact. Zoidsoft responded

QUOTE

'…...When it comes to Greek, everything is speculation.
Schmidt has said jokingly that it is a language tailor made for liars...


I believe that it was Hand that came out with that statement on whole sign houses.

Schmidt has repeatedly stated that these translations are preliminary.

Riley also said the same..... :smile:

When reading translations semantic fields are often not exactly correct.
I'm only saying that if you read the Greek your opinion would become more definitive
because you would know when the semantic fields are being stretched to make sense of something that is either in your own mind
or if it truly originated in the mind of the author......'


QUOTE

'…...solution is finding a planet in a house (a division of 30 equal degrees) where planet is said to be in "Good Spirit" when ascendant is Sagittarius and said planet is actually Scorpio.

Or if planet is in the house of God in Gemini (9th equal house division) when the ascendant is in Scorpio.

This is important statistically because with the number of examples in Greek Horoscopes, if no such instances are found then it would be highly improbable that the context of that passage in Valens IX actually refers to measuring topics in the way shown in the previous chapters.

There's what Valens says, and then there's what he does.....'

waybread
03-23-2014, 10:53 PM
JA, I think we're in danger of derailing this thread-- if people want to read that thread at Skyscript, they now know where to find it. This is the OP for this thread:



I require your help, I've been studying the traditional whole sign houses system, and a I have a question. A man with the Ascendant at 27° of Sagitarious. Even with that Ascendent so close to the end of the sign, is all Sagitarious the I house? and how do we use the degree of the Ascendant in this case?


Thanks for your answers.

JUPITERASC
03-23-2014, 11:23 PM
I require your help, I've been studying the traditional whole sign houses system, and a I have a question. A man with the Ascendant at 27° of Sagitarious. Even with that Ascendent so close to the end of the sign, is all Sagitarious the I house? and how do we use the degree of the Ascendant in this case?


Thanks for your answers.
A Yian if you are of the opinion that your question has been comprehensively answered then, since you are the OP, it is your choice to say so - do post any further questions if you have any. I note you are using the 'thanks' button, rather than giving detailed responses :smile:

A Yian
03-24-2014, 01:41 AM
Ah, Jupiterrasca, I just observe the discussion, learning and reflecting. My question has been comprehensively answered, but now I think that that only way to assimilate the system is in the practicing,t judging charts. Thank for all your answers and if you want to say something more, you will enrich the topic.

waybread
03-24-2014, 01:41 AM
a new topic should have a new thread.
Off-topic and personal messages are permitted as long as they are limited and do not turn the attention from the astrological topic discussed.
(forum rules)

Larxene
03-24-2014, 01:49 AM
A Yian,

I recommend getting a book on an astrologer who uses Whole Signs as his main house system, to get an idea of how to use the system and when to use the ascendant degree.

In general, the ascendant degree is important for calculating the Lots. It is also important in horary astrology to determine whether the chart is radical or not.

I have only read Mathesis completely and Book 1 of The Anthology partially, so based on those sources, here are several situations where the ascendant degree is used. In Mathesis, Book 7 on fixed stars has some description of the native depending on which degree of a sign his ascendant is in. There is also a section on bright stars and what happens when the Ascendant or Descendant is near that degree. In Valens, the terms that the ascendant is in will tell you about the character of the native, as well as the terms of the dodekatemorion of the ascendant degree (though these two techniques may be my own innovation).



In practice, I would try to use the writer's system first and see how compatible the house system is with his techniques. For when you are in Rome, you should do as the Romans do.

Then I would use a different system and compare the two results, and adjust my practice from there.

There is certainly nothing wrong with experimenting with different houses, but first trying out the way other people have done things will allow you to appreciate and understand the strengths and weaknesses of their approach.

dr. farr
03-24-2014, 02:50 AM
While certainly not holding myself out as any kind of example, nonetheless-in following Larxene's suggestion, posted above-I'll mention that ALL of my delineative (natal, medical, event and horary) postings here on AW, always use whole sign house format: so, to get an idea about whole sign in action, one could investigate my delineative and horary chart posts.

A Yian
03-24-2014, 02:52 AM
I'll begin with Abu Ali Al Khayyat ;)

tsmall
03-24-2014, 05:50 AM
A few observations on this thread, which is yet another on the debate over which house system to use...although this one actually went along very nicely.

1...waybread, you da bomb! Seriously? I tried using Valens' method for calculating the ASC and gave myself a headache with it. I am super impressed that you actually tried recreating his charts (and more than a bit ashamed that I haven't attempted Valens since I discovered Sahl and Masha'Allah.)

2. When we talk about Ptolemy using equal houses, it has to be made clear that his version of equal houses varies differently from the equal houses charts we can get today. For reference, Ptolemy was what brought us to the 5* rule (in any quadrant based system, whether time or space divided, a planet within 5* of the cusp of the next house is considered to be in that next house.) Equal sign houses today, as widely used in the UK, base all houses on the degree of the ASC. It's like a riff on WSH, in that we can find the cusp of the WSH more easily when that cusp marks the start of the house. Today's version of equal sign houses start each house at the degree ascending.

Ptolemy's "equal houses" start from 5* prior to the ASC and go to 30* from that point. If you have a circle and crayons, you can see how this is different.

3. That Lilly was using Regiomontanus house divisions because that was the only published table of houses at the time should strike no one as unusual. Nor should it be found particularly peculiar that most modern astrologers do rely on Placidus houses, since in the 20th century THAT was the most easily accessible table of houses.

I've never attempted calculating a table of houses. Why? Because it is pretty freaking hard, and at this point someone has done the work for me. That I knew the reason certain astrologers used certain house systems? It should be completely obvious to anyone who is really studying the foundations of the craft. We don't need to have arguments or debates on house systems if we really understand what house systems do or are. It is most unfortunate that <most> of today's astrologers think that a website and an name makes you an expert, yet can't even understand the evolution of house systems...or how to use a telescope to look at the stars.

4. That This is the traditional forum has like zero weight here at AW. People always want to come and post about how relying on something from the past is outdated, without learning the tradition, and this always devolves into a "I should be allowed to post my opinions everywhere on the forum debate." Unless those posts are specifically called out (which unless treading carefully could violate other forum rules) to the personal attention of the moderators, nothing happens. Which means, waybread, that off topic conversations can totally happen here of all places unless or until someone reports them.. And even then the moderation is lacking.

5. About WSH. It is beautiful and does have more than a symmetrical value. It is not entirely an imperfect system. There is extant proof that the likes of Sahl, Masha'Alla, Abu Ali...wow, most of the Persian astrologers, who came next in line in the Western Tradition, were looking at a more quadrant based system...yet continued to count signs for significators.

It may have evolved from the idea that a planet within so many degrees of an angle was angular, succedent, or cadent from that angle...something else anyone with nothing more than an understanding of subtraction can find...

Poryphory was not a division of time nor space, but merely a trisecting of the arc between the ASC and the MC...and yes, in antiquity they were quite able to discover the exact degree culminating...just like they figured out precession and finally decided it was too much to worry about...just like they built the freaking pyramids. For those who think we have evolved more and so what tradition has to teach us is either lame, lacking, or out of touch in modern world...go. Build me a pyramid out of nothing but your sheer intellect. Let's see how far you get

WSH works. Not just for the simplicity of it (think of the Gordian Knot) but because it works. For those of us lame enough to need to have a calculator do the maths...any quadrant/space/time/continuum system is going to work as an overlay to the WSH chart.

waybread
03-24-2014, 11:33 PM
tsmall, you are right-- usually threads on "which house system is best" generate food fights on astrology forums. Thank goodness we are all minding our table manners.

I have looked at my chart using all of the methods available at Astrodienst, and in a way, I can see all of them working, through revealing different sides of my life and personality. I think of different houses like portrait-style photographs. A full-face photo will look different than a profile or an oblique angle, yet each of them still shows the same person. The big exception is for people at high-latitude births at certain times of year, where some of the quadrant systems give really distorted houses. This might be an argument for whole-sign or equal-house, except that then you can nevertheless wind up with the MC in the 12th house.

Part of the reason why I think "several sizes fit all" is because of secondary progressions. By the time anyone is 30 years old, their sun and probably some other planets will have progressed into the next sign and house, anyway.

Ptolemy didn't leave us worked-out chart examples and mentions only three of the houses at all, so far as I recall, aso it is hard to say what house system he used. I don't think he used houses much, relying instead on various Arabian parts ("lots") for most topics that I would consider under the domain of a particular house. He was the comsumate systematizer and rationalist, and somehow houses attributed to ancient mystical Egyptian seers (Nechepso and Petosiris) didn't sit well with him. There is one place where he talks about a 5 degree rule, but whether he meant it for just that one technique or not is anybody's guess.

If you consult the thread on Skyscript (last few pages) where I discussed the 5 charts from Valens that I constructed, you will see that I didn't bother with re-thinking how he set the ascendant. Valens lists several different surrogate methods for fixing the ascendant, only one of which even mentions clock time. Sometimes he gives an ascendant degree, but often just an ascendant sign. I thought maybe I could get somewhere by looking at the P of F but found he was calculating it by numbering the signs, not by adding and subtracting degrees. Then I didn't start with dates from scratch, but the ones given in Neugebauer and Van Hoesen, Greek Horoscopes (a google book.) They had a bearcat of a job trying to match up Valens's charts with the polyglot calendars used in ancient times. So I give them full credit, but found them a day off and sometimes I adjusted their birth times, just to get the rest of the chart to work out by house as Valens gave them.

Finally, I think different astrologers feel more at home with different house systems, just as some individuals seem to resonate more with one house system vs. another. I like Placidus not only because I am comfortable with it, but because I think I get more interpretive value by using intercepted signs and signs on house cusps that may not be different than the major sign within a house.

Innayat
03-26-2014, 12:23 AM
I actually still don't know which house system I want to believe. When I switch to whole signs all my house placements move up by one, so it changes everything. When I initially looked at my chart in whole signs a lot things seemed to make sense but it is still sort of a head ache as to which I want to believe makes more sense.

JUPITERASC
03-26-2014, 01:21 AM
I actually still don't know which house system I want to believe.
When I switch to whole signs all my house placements move up by one, so it changes everything.
Whole Sign Houses system
also known as the 'One whole sign = One whole house' system
was not originally solely utitilised
by ancient astrologers


in fact, ancient astrologers, as well as present day astrologers
utilise Whole Sign Houses System IN TANDEM WITH any other quadrant house system of personal choice
i.e.
A few observations on this thread, which is yet another on the debate over which house system to use...although this one actually went along very nicely.....


....WSH works. Not just for the simplicity of it
(think of the Gordian Knot)
but because it works.
For those of us lame enough to need to have a calculator do the maths...

any quadrant/space/time/continuum system is going to work as an overlay to the WSH chart.
So Innayat, when you say you are attempting to discard the quadrant system you originally used
and use Whole Sign Houses on its own
that is not necessary
When I initially looked at my chart in whole signs a lot things seemed to make sense
but it is still sort of a head ache as to which I want to believe makes more sense.
Use BOTH :smile:

Simply overlay the Quadrant based system
on the Whole Sign Houses

Whole Sign Houses to determine the topic

and

Any quadrant based system of choice
such as Alcabitius
to gauge planetary strength

or Placidus
to gauge planetary strength

or Porphyry
to gauge planetary strength

and so on for the other thirty or so house systems currently circulating

Larxene
03-26-2014, 02:00 AM
@Innayat: I think you should open a new thread for that, because this is getting off the original question, which was about two things:

1) When using WSH, are the planets above the ascendant but in the same sign as the ascendant in the first house? (Answered already)
2) How is the ascendant degree used in WSH? (Also answered to some extent)

I also have opinions about many things mentioned in this thread, but since they are off-topic, I chose to restrain myself.

Innayat
03-26-2014, 06:12 AM
Whole Sign Houses system
also known as the 'One whole sign = One whole house' system
was not originally solely utitilised
by ancient astrologers


in fact, ancient astrologers, as well as present day astrologers
utilise Whole Sign Houses System IN TANDEM WITH any other quadrant house system of personal choice
i.e.

So Innayat, when you say you are attempting to discard the quadrant system you originally used
and use Whole Sign Houses on its own
that is not necessary

Use BOTH :smile:

Simply overlay the Quadrant based system
on the Whole Sign Houses

Whole Sign Houses to determine the topic

and

Any quadrant based system of choice
such as Alcabitius
to gauge planetary strength

or Placidus
to gauge planetary strength

or Porphyry
to gauge planetary strength

and so on for the other thirty or so house systems currently circulating




Thank you for that JupiterAsc. Since I do not yet have a concrete opinion on it, it is refreshing to know some people still keep a mind for open concepts. :)

@laxanne,No, I dont care to open a new thread for that, was just stating my situation with the usage of it.

A Yian
04-02-2014, 04:56 PM
From the centiloquium of Hermes trismegistus

50.- The ascendant, or a planet found in the last degree, the signification must be taken from the following sign; but if in 29 deg. in the same sign, the strength of a planet is considered three ways, viz. in the degree where he is found, and next preceding and succeeding.