what chart style have you found to be most accuret?

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
What, if this kind of typing and answering is already an expression of an opinion?
I'd say there is nothing insulting intended, not as far as I can read or sense.

We are all different in thoughts, understanding and expression,
and shouldn't we exercise some freedom and tolerance to this fact here in the forum?

Just my opinion
;)
Well said :smile:

by the way
for greater clarity:

How to use Whole Signs as Originally Intended
as advised by dr. farr

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...
 

dowhanawi

Well-known member
I've always used the placidus system, simply because I think geography must have a bearing on the nature of one's unfolding karma/life. Rudolf Steiner speaks very unequivocally about the specific influences of geographical environment on our souls/psychology/karma etc. I guess maybe I feel that a house being enlarged or diminished is a reflection of the degree of influence of that house, which is reflected in the 'real world' by the fact that a person is born here or there. This leads onto the next point.
I strongly feel that a planet falling into one house or another must be critical and decisive, and profoundly important, so having a 'selection' of house systems seems to be severely at odds with what astrology means to do. Surely we have been working with planets, signs and houses for long enough now to know with absolute certainty that if planets fall in certain houses, they must reflect specific and irrefutable qualities that override any aspects or modifying influences from other planets/bodies/points etc, and as such, should have clarified by now whether or when placidus, equal house or whole sign house systems are applicable or not.

I must say that if astrology is to consider itself a 'science' - which I believe it must do - astrologers really should be finding agreement on which house systems are the most effective, albeit some may be considered to function more effectively for differing purposes e.g. horary vs natal etc, or we'll forever be at odds with each other, and rightfully be branded a pseudo-science or a superstition by outside observers.
The fact that astrologers 'know' astrology is a working and reliable system is of no consequence to those who would venture in from outside, and be put off by the seemingly illogical applications of random rules and systems. Not that that should matter per se, just as physicists have no responsibility to placate artists for example, however there is a certain responsibility on our parts to be clear for astrology's sake.
I have no idea which system applies with absolute certainty, so I can only venture an opinion, like most of us here, and for me Placidus has served me well enough. A lifetime of experience will hopefully inform a rounded view in each of our cases, and perhaps those experiences will some day lead to a settled house system we can all agree upon.

Your science point is an interesting one, but even on science they make new findings and work from multiple theories. I have a friend with a PhD in astronomy and he does astrology (although he keeps that info to friends aa the astronomy community isn't open to it lol). He and I have some good talks on theory. Just something to think about. And always good to have a favorite theory that makes the most sense to you.
 

Arena

Well-known member
I've found dr. farr's notes on the matter very useful. But I must also say that since I got to know western sidereal astrology I find the houses become less and less important. What matters most in western sidereal astrology is angularity, meaning it really is mostly defined by ASC/DSC and MC/IC and the planets that are close to those axis as well as the EP-WP axis (the square aspect to MC) and Zenith-Nadir (square to ASC).

The planets that fall near those (0-5degr) are those that will have the biggest impact and they have their own expressions as planets and will express themselves according to the angle they come close to. This is true for natal charts, relocated charts as well as solar returns and lunar returns.
 

Dr.Time

Well-known member
I've found dr. farr's notes on the matter very useful. But I must also say that since I got to know western sidereal astrology I find the houses become less and less important. What matters most in western sidereal astrology is angularity, meaning it really is mostly defined by ASC/DSC and MC/IC and the planets that are close to those axis as well as the EP-WP axis (the square aspect to MC) and Zenith-Nadir (square to ASC).

The planets that fall near those (0-5degr) are those that will have the biggest impact and they have their own expressions as planets and will express themselves according to the angle they come close to. This is true for natal charts, relocated charts as well as solar returns and lunar returns.

Hey Arena,
Do you know what happened to Dr. Farr?
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

Hey Arena,
Do you know what happened to Dr. Farr?
Dr. Farr posted the following comment 15 July 2014

(*can such a Saturn transit activate a condition of ill health?

In my chart, Saturn is a potent planet, both for good and for ill;
without going into details at this time, let me mention that Saturn in Scorpio FOR ME
-that is, in my own chart-is indicated as a most - transit:
during this same Saturn transit of Scorpio,
I received an injury to my right foot, which later became septic
and which required amputation of the foot at the ankle {June 25, 2014}

While I'll be getting a prosthetic foot over the next couple of months
which will allow pretty normal walking,
nonetheless I consider the loss of my right foot as connected with the Saturn transit of Scorpio,
due to the confluence of indications regarding Saturn and Scorpio in my own specific chart

...So, YES, I believe that certain transits of Saturn CAN influence serious affections of health
under the right confluence of susceptibilities as shown in a given natal chart,
and I believe that the current Saturn transit of Scorpio has a special affinity for the OP
due to the OP's natal Lot of Chronic Illness being in Scorpio, and in the OP's natal first house)
Thanks for the condolences!
The analysis of the Saturn/Scorpio transit influences in my chart
in connection with the injury, septic condition and final amputation of the foot,
is an interesting illustration of astro-medical causal effects,
which I will post (as a seperate thread) in the near future.

Best wishes regarding your own health problem!
(Remember considering alternative health sources, such as naturopathy, homeopathy, herbal therapy, Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine, for help:
unfortunately, although a homeopathic doctor myself,
I did not address my own foot condition early on
-since it seemed so superficial-with the proper remedies,
and then-it was too late!!
Another influence here of Saturn
-this being an example of the negligence which can be an influence of that planet!)
 

Kernowerno

Well-known member
What, if this kind of typing and answering is already an expression of an opinion? I'd say there is nothing insulting intended, not as far as I can read or sense.
We are all different in thoughts, understanding and expression, and shouldn't we exercise some freedom and tolerance to this fact here in the forum?

Just my opinion;)

I absolutely agree. If I came across as harsh I apologise Jupiter. I would like to know what your preferred house system is though :smile: I understand your opinion about opinions, but I would like your opinion on a preferred house system?
 

oleanna

Well-known member
I absolutely agree. If I came across as harsh I apologise Jupiter. I would like to know what your preferred house system is though :smile: I understand your opinion about opinions, but I would like your opinion on a preferred house system?

Who can decide about "harsh" definiton? There is a lot really impolite stuff going on in this forum, - and i think the first thing you like to get here is an answer, - and Jupiterasc gives an answer, quick and often on the point. I find that in itself friendly. Lot of people do not even thank for that. as if this was a supermarket and they had ordered and already paid for what they get.
Again, my opinion;)

and now my opinion about house systems.
I use Regiomontanus or whole sign when i do horary, and Placidus when i work on natal charts.
It's what i work with best over the last years.

you said you think Astrology should call itself a science.
Why do you think so?
For me it works fine without the reputation or confirmation of the others out there.
It works for me, basta.
It's sometimes correct in results, sometimes, close, sometimes it just makes me change my way of thinking, or my way of understanding a thing, - or it delivers new definition (very often in natal charts)
This all is of value for me.
It's not a religion, and might not be a science, - but it works.

but please, tell me, why do you think it should be a science?
 
Last edited:

tenacapcious

Well-known member
Because I'm still an astrology novice, I use Placidus because it's a standard on many sites and most people are familiar with it, so if i need help, it might be the easiest chart style to use. Because my husband has intercepted houses and some planets are close to a cusp but close in degrees to a planet in the previous house or sign, I sometimes try to look at his chart, choosing Koch if that's a site option. I don't understand the different house system differences, but it moves planets a bit so it's easier for me to get an overview, without being overwhelmed. I'm not sure how any of this should make a difference between the two house systems.
 

Kernowerno

Well-known member
but please, tell me, why do you think it should be a science?

What I mean is that a scientific approach, one where empiricism and thorough analysis are combined to ascertain a greater degree of certainty, is what should be aspired to. Although intuition inevitably has a great deal to contribute, as with physics or other classic disciplines which require and exercise rigorous methodologies in order to be regarded as worthy contributors to human endeavour - where intuition is referred to as a 'hunch', ultimately reason and results must bear out any speculation or theory. It's not that I think it 'should' be a science, more that it is a science, and should be pursued and practised as such. We live in an age of reason, where wooly ideas and hocus-pocus can play no part.
 

oleanna

Well-known member
What I mean is that a scientific approach, one where empiricism and thorough analysis are combined to ascertain a greater degree of certainty, is what should be aspired to. Although intuition inevitably has a great deal to contribute, as with physics or other classic disciplines which require and exercise rigorous methodologies in order to be regarded as worthy contributors to human endeavour - where intuition is referred to as a 'hunch', ultimately reason and results must bear out any speculation or theory. It's not that I think it 'should' be a science, more that it is a science, and should be pursued and practised as such. We live in an age of reason, where wooly ideas and hocus-pocus can play no part.

Hm, i see your point, of course, - but, talk to a psychologist, or even a psychiatrist and listen what they have to say. - I mean, as soon as the human being is involved it gets hard to work with clear measurements.
it's foggy on both ends, - the "producers" have opinions, emotions, judgements, etc - as well as the receivers. Not to talk of the topic itself, which then deals with human "material".
There is a couple of studies out there, specially done in France, as far as i can remember, and they brought some interesting results, - but nothing clear enough to be called science, i'm afraid.
I am a sort of definite capricorn, Sun, Asc, Venus, Mars and Mercury in Cap, - so i'm not the type of person that falls easily for a thing like astrology. It look me some years or more to come closer and finally put it in a frame that suits me well enough to say: yes, there is something seriously true about it all.
That's so far enough for myself.
 

oleanna

Well-known member
Here is something about the most extensive scientific research on astrology. The end result was that it fits with the sidereal zodiac, and angularity of planets are of greatest importance.

http://www.astrology-and-science.com/g-hist2.htm

Thanks for that, Arena! Gauquelin was the leading expert on this for many many years. The first book about astrology that got into my hands was his study about profession and astrology. quite interesting.
Thanks a lot for posting this!
 

david starling

Well-known member
For me, it's whole-signs. The word "science" simply means " knowledge", but I think it implies a systematic method. Under this definition Astrology would qualify, since it provides knowledge in an organized, categorical way. " Modern Science", which strives to explain Everything in a materialistic, impersonal, objective way using the "Scientific Method" has overshadowed every other definition (in the Modern world). Astrology is all about Correlation. Modern science is all about Causation.
 
Last edited:

oleanna

Well-known member
For me, it's whole-signs. The word "science" simply means " knowledge", but I think it implies a systematic method. Under this definition Astrology would qualify, since it provides knowledge in an organized, categorical way. " Modern Science", which strives to explain Everything in a materialistic, impersonal, objective way using the "Scientific Method" has overshadowed every other definition (in the Modern world). Astrology is all about Correlation. Modern science is all about Causation.


thanks for that! a good way to put it!
 

waybread

Well-known member
For me, it's whole-signs. The word "science" simply means " knowledge", but I think it implies a systematic method. Under this definition Astrology would qualify, since it provides knowledge in an organized, categorical way. " Modern Science", which strives to explain Everything in a materialistic, impersonal, objective way using the "Scientific Method" has overshadowed every other definition (in the Modern world). Astrology is all about Correlation. Modern science is all about Causation.


David, I'd suggest a narrower definition of science that is consistent with how actual astronomers, geologists, microbiologists, physical chemists, &c define it today. Otherwise, it just makes astrologers look like a bunch of dummies who don't even know what science is. Scientists don't use the word "science" in the broadly inclusive sense of systematic knowledge, and astrologers are simply not going to change that. Oftentimes causation is important in science, but it isn't by a long shot the only way that science works. Statistics are widely used in science, for example, and they only show tendencies and probabilities related to the correlation of variables. Some scientists are involved in modeling systems' behaviour, rather than cause-and-effect, because, for one thing, a complex system typically has feedback loops.

We wouldn't classify the following fields as sciences, yet they, too "[provide] knowledge in an organized, categorical way." Consider the fields of accountancy, history, legal studies, economics, or modern languages.
 

david starling

Well-known member
I would make a clear distinction between Pure Science, like Astrology, which is about understanding and appreciating the patterns of Nature, and Modern Applied Science, in which knowledge of cause and effect is used to manipulate and control Nature (including Human nature). Your point is well-taken--from now on I'll place them in separate categories. Modern Applied Science takes anything it can use from Pure Science, and applies it in ways to which Pure scientists might object. It does both bad and good things, but the former is of serious concern.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
David, thanks-- but how about just sticking with definitions of science that scientists use, and that most scientifically educated people adopt? An astrologer trying to re-do what science is and is not, in any meaningful way, just isn't going to happen. Scientists know who they are and what they do. So far as I can determine from many threads of this nature across 3 astrology forums, most amateur astrologers do not know what science is and what it does.

Your distinction doesn't hold up.

Many card-carrying scientists do what is colloquially known as curiosity-driven science. It isn't applied at all. Curiosity-driven scientists simply want to learn how their corner of nature, physical processes, or the cosmos works. They may suggest that their research has practical application, but the curiosity-driven scientists are not developing that application themselves.

Much of the scientific research that goes on in applied science (and here we might throw in engineering) has nothing whatever to do with "knowledge of cause and effect ... used to manipulate and control Nature (including Human nature.)" Surely you can think of examples that contradict your own statement.

Many ecologists are involved in habitat restoration projects. Many testify as expert witnesses against corporate projects designed to control nature. It is hard to see how an astronomer charting remote galaxies via the Hubble telescope is trying in anyway to manipulate and control nature, let alone human beings.

Moreover, all kinds of people who are not scientists try to manipulate and control both nature and their fellow citizens. Corporate advertising and military dictators would be two examples.

Why not just take science for what it is-- according to people with doctorate degrees in it who teach science. And then if you must define astrology, define it for what it is-- a system of divination.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Scientists have their own difficulties defining their profession. "Hard" science devalues "soft", even to the extent of denying it belongs in the same category. Astronomy shares a Muse with Astrology and Navigation; History has one, and geometry, agriculture and architecture have Muse connections as well. As for cause and effect: Vital for Engineering, and of great interest to applied science in general (what caused that structure to fail, so the problem can be solved?). Historians are curious about why human culture developed as it has--something must have caused it. Something must have caused the stars to form, and the Earth to be able to support life. Not accepting a phenomenon at face value is an intrinsic factor in the development of Modern Science, in both the Pure and Applied fields. Anyway, if Economics, Sociology and Psychology are sciences, so is Astrology! The more we know, the more we realize how little we really know.
Just as an aside, you are an expert Astrologer, with beautiful Thought Waves. Thank you for responding!
 
Last edited:
Top