Sidereal or Tropcal? Placidus, or Equal.
- Thread starter KrisOmari
- Start date
I'm not sure whether to use placid us, or equal, or sidereal, or tropical..? I can understand all of my charts, with all these possibilities, but I'm just wondering, and looking for a definite answer. Thank you in advance.
byjove
Account Closed
Yeah, you can try to figure this out in many ways. One route I took was researching about each system's origins to help me decide. After a few years of that, what I would say is pick which system reflects best your life. All the historical arguements fade if you find one that reflects well who you are. Good luck! 
Right, its up to your own insights, tastes and experiences; personally I use tropical (but with great respect for sidereal, and of course I use sidereal in a way because of the importance I give to the fixed stars and various constellations), and relative to house system format, after using Placidus for 30+ years, I converted to whole sign house about 14 years ago and feel that this house format has given me "better" results than the good results I obtained from Placidus.
Doesn't matter whether it's a Ford, a Chevy, a Fiat or a Mercedes....as long as it gets you where you're going.
Which house system?.....Watch transits, particularly of heavy planets, over the cusps of derivative houses.
'Watch for synchronicity between the passage of the planet over the cusp and events that correspond.
Same thing applies to orbs of aspect. Watch the planets in transit and see when they produce effects.
Study the history of astrology, see what you learn from that.
Study astronomy.....that is, celestial motions as seen from Earth, orbits and such. Very very important if you want to be an astrologer.
I think Robert Hand, who has moved over the years through many house systems, has ended up using equal houses...He was at some confab of erudite astrologers in Masschusetts when he said that all the arguing over house systems was just mental masturbation. That's a pretty apt description.
What''s the philosophical difference between tropical and sidereal? What's the astronomical difference? Answer those questions and make your choice.
What's the ultimate test of astrology? Does it consistently give reliable results? Long and short of the whole deal.
How does astrology work? How can the stars so accurately portray the life of an insignificant human being, or the outcome of some situation? The answer you give may determine which of the systems you prefer to use.
Which house system?.....Watch transits, particularly of heavy planets, over the cusps of derivative houses.
'Watch for synchronicity between the passage of the planet over the cusp and events that correspond.
Same thing applies to orbs of aspect. Watch the planets in transit and see when they produce effects.
Study the history of astrology, see what you learn from that.
Study astronomy.....that is, celestial motions as seen from Earth, orbits and such. Very very important if you want to be an astrologer.
I think Robert Hand, who has moved over the years through many house systems, has ended up using equal houses...He was at some confab of erudite astrologers in Masschusetts when he said that all the arguing over house systems was just mental masturbation. That's a pretty apt description.
What''s the philosophical difference between tropical and sidereal? What's the astronomical difference? Answer those questions and make your choice.
What's the ultimate test of astrology? Does it consistently give reliable results? Long and short of the whole deal.
How does astrology work? How can the stars so accurately portray the life of an insignificant human being, or the outcome of some situation? The answer you give may determine which of the systems you prefer to use.
Last edited:
I'm a firm user of Equal House, it is a refinement of Whole Sign. Yes I have studied with Robert Hand but my first teacher was Carl Payne Tobey. With Equal, all cusps are the same degree as the ASC. If you are married to the MC/IC your software can put it in just like a planet.
There are real math measurement reasons for this that are complicated. In simple form, the Asc/Dsc is measured on the ecliptic. The MC/IC is measured on the equator. These two planes are 23deg26min apart. That is why there are so many house systems, trying to rectify this difference. Only equal and Whole Sign measure all houses on the ecliptic. All other house systems fail above the Arctic Circle.
If you are a beginner, stay with either Whole Sign or Equal. It will serve you better.
There are real math measurement reasons for this that are complicated. In simple form, the Asc/Dsc is measured on the ecliptic. The MC/IC is measured on the equator. These two planes are 23deg26min apart. That is why there are so many house systems, trying to rectify this difference. Only equal and Whole Sign measure all houses on the ecliptic. All other house systems fail above the Arctic Circle.
If you are a beginner, stay with either Whole Sign or Equal. It will serve you better.
Why will "it serve you better?"
What is inherently "better" about whole sign or equal house systems?
I have been using Placidus for over 40 years, ever since I was a beginner. It has served me well.
If the houses are mundane (and they are, for they specifically depict "our immediate surroundings") doesn't it make sense to divide the mundane plane (the equator) equally, rather than the cosmic ecliptic, which is not mundane?
The fact that the quadrant house systems suffer distortion at high latitudes is only a reflection of actual fact. The things that go on at extremely high latitudes (with or without a house system of any kind) are nothing short of amazing. The Ascendent and Descendant, for example, literally flip-flop instantaneously.
I don't have any problem with use of whole sign or equal houses, but it strikes me as arrogant for a proponent of those systems to claim "they are better." Substantiate your claim. Why are they better and how do you prove it? They aren't and you can't.
My guess is that when you were studying under Carl Payne Tobey (really???) you found the calculation of Placidus house cusps too complicated for your head and chose the simple and simplisitic whole sign houses instead. Why not Porphyry Houses, which takes into account the two major geometric planes of astrology while dividing the ecliptic? The Horizon (Asc/Dsc) is certainly the most individualized point in the horoscope -- no matter which systems or methods you use -- and this places the houses of the horoscope in the first rank of power or pertinence, because the houses are what make my chart different from someone else's born on the same day, at the same time.
What is inherently "better" about whole sign or equal house systems?
I have been using Placidus for over 40 years, ever since I was a beginner. It has served me well.
If the houses are mundane (and they are, for they specifically depict "our immediate surroundings") doesn't it make sense to divide the mundane plane (the equator) equally, rather than the cosmic ecliptic, which is not mundane?
The fact that the quadrant house systems suffer distortion at high latitudes is only a reflection of actual fact. The things that go on at extremely high latitudes (with or without a house system of any kind) are nothing short of amazing. The Ascendent and Descendant, for example, literally flip-flop instantaneously.
I don't have any problem with use of whole sign or equal houses, but it strikes me as arrogant for a proponent of those systems to claim "they are better." Substantiate your claim. Why are they better and how do you prove it? They aren't and you can't.
My guess is that when you were studying under Carl Payne Tobey (really???) you found the calculation of Placidus house cusps too complicated for your head and chose the simple and simplisitic whole sign houses instead. Why not Porphyry Houses, which takes into account the two major geometric planes of astrology while dividing the ecliptic? The Horizon (Asc/Dsc) is certainly the most individualized point in the horoscope -- no matter which systems or methods you use -- and this places the houses of the horoscope in the first rank of power or pertinence, because the houses are what make my chart different from someone else's born on the same day, at the same time.
Last edited:
Moog
Well-known member
I think the best thing is to find a system that 'speaks' to you. Take that as your base. Then, test and retest different things as you go, as your understanding of the meaning of things improves/changes. Don't get too attached to the first things you learn, as they may be wrong.
Over the course of looking at hundreds of charts, you may begin to build a sense of what is working and what isn't.
Over the course of looking at hundreds of charts, you may begin to build a sense of what is working and what isn't.
Moog
Well-known member
I'd be surprised if most people aren't calculating charts with computers, nowadays.
Moog
Well-known member
If you believe that you cannot prove one form of astrology, or in this case method of calculating and reading a chart, as 'better' then do you believe that they are all equally valid (or invalid)?
Moog
Well-known member
Yes, my point is that, even though we have computers calculating the charts now, many people are still interested in non quadrant house systems.
In a modern context, it makes no sense to imply that people who use whole sign houses are just thick or lazy.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
I find your inference inappropriate and agree with Moog who says
in any event greybeard, nbennett uses Equal House - not whole signs
Furthermore greybeard, notice that nbennett also said
Robert Hand is currently very much in evidence lecturing as well as working as an astrologer.
nbennett only said
fwiw IMO, To have learned astrology from two such erudite teachers as Carl Payne Tobey and Robert Hand is great good fortune!
Alice McDermott
Well-known member
This godsmacked me! Perhaps you can enlarge? From my perspective of hand calculating charts for most of my astrological life, the MC is calculated using the time of birth and longitude and the Ascendant is calculated from the MC using the latitude of place of birth. As latitude is measured from the equator, it seems to me that the Ascendant is the angle connected to the equator.
Most quadrant house systems then use a mathematical formula to work out houses based on the time (MC) and place (Ascendant) of birth. This is what makes them so special.
Both measurements from the equator and measurements from the ecliptic are quite valid, one isn't better than the other, they are just different factors involving the Earth.
Alice
Well, I would say that if you calculated a chart all based on equatorial directions and a chart all in ecliptic directions, they would both be valid. But to mix the ecliptic and equatorial together gets into problems. The main reason Placidus was so popular, it was the first table of houses printed in english. Although, as an aside, EH house is popular in the UK and India. Just as Vedic astrology is all sidereal measurements and there are heliocentric charts too. The key is that the system be consistent. Measurements should be apples and apples, not apples and oranges.
Which is why the Table of Houses all stopped at 66deg, at the Arctic Circle. Above the Arctic Circle as you travel to the geographic north pole, you are walking geographically north while you are walking ecliptically south. That is why the houses collapse.
Again, you can always put in the MC/IC as a point in the chart, and not give up your desire to blend the two directions. I always put the MC in the chart as a testing point. I put Chiron in there too, sometimes the Vertex to test and follow it. After 10-15 years, I'm not impressed.
If you ever get the CPT book, Astrology of Inner Space, it extensively analyzed the MC with several graphs to show the differences in measurements. In a simple example, the ephermerides lists planets in ecliptic long. You really cannot tell if a planet is really conj the MC because it is in equatorial long. It's possible to be way off from the actual planet. To be sure, then use right ascension measurements for the planet to see if the MC and planet are really conjunct.
I never attempt to change astrologer's habits and personal preferences. But they should know what they are doing in their calculations. Now it's all handled for us with software. So the past 20 years, the newer astrologers never deal with this and have no idea how these measurements are done. Therefore, they never question this either.
Robert Hand and I had a long debate for years over WH and EH. He finally said in 2010 that EH is just as valid as WH. Of course, he is CONSISTENT with teaching Greek techniques using WH.
A short story: Back in 1998-99 students of Rob's had an online blog/list where we talked and debated. At the time, it was being taught that the Greeks did not use/recognize out of sign aspects. Therefore if Mars was at 29Scop and Saturn was 1 Pisces, it did not count! Rob was saying to students that they didn't function. I differed with this concept on the list. Later, there was a strong flame war and very quickly the list was terminated under a Mars sq Uranus transit out of sign! Proof is in the pudding. I did email him and called him on it.
Which is why the Table of Houses all stopped at 66deg, at the Arctic Circle. Above the Arctic Circle as you travel to the geographic north pole, you are walking geographically north while you are walking ecliptically south. That is why the houses collapse.
Again, you can always put in the MC/IC as a point in the chart, and not give up your desire to blend the two directions. I always put the MC in the chart as a testing point. I put Chiron in there too, sometimes the Vertex to test and follow it. After 10-15 years, I'm not impressed.
If you ever get the CPT book, Astrology of Inner Space, it extensively analyzed the MC with several graphs to show the differences in measurements. In a simple example, the ephermerides lists planets in ecliptic long. You really cannot tell if a planet is really conj the MC because it is in equatorial long. It's possible to be way off from the actual planet. To be sure, then use right ascension measurements for the planet to see if the MC and planet are really conjunct.
I never attempt to change astrologer's habits and personal preferences. But they should know what they are doing in their calculations. Now it's all handled for us with software. So the past 20 years, the newer astrologers never deal with this and have no idea how these measurements are done. Therefore, they never question this either.
Robert Hand and I had a long debate for years over WH and EH. He finally said in 2010 that EH is just as valid as WH. Of course, he is CONSISTENT with teaching Greek techniques using WH.
A short story: Back in 1998-99 students of Rob's had an online blog/list where we talked and debated. At the time, it was being taught that the Greeks did not use/recognize out of sign aspects. Therefore if Mars was at 29Scop and Saturn was 1 Pisces, it did not count! Rob was saying to students that they didn't function. I differed with this concept on the list. Later, there was a strong flame war and very quickly the list was terminated under a Mars sq Uranus transit out of sign! Proof is in the pudding. I did email him and called him on it.
byjove
Account Closed
Hi, I remember doing some research on Equal a few years back. Am I right in saying, there is some evidence that Ptolemy may have used Equal house? I remember a counter argument that it was simply a misinterpretation that he did, I'd like figure that out. I live reasonably north and frequently see skewed house systems. I know a lot of astrologers in the UK that use Equal house.
An interesting connection between Equal house and Whole Signs I find is that Whole Signs doesn't ignore cusps exactly; the ascending degree becomes the most important point in each house thereafter - only in Equal house, that point becomes the next 'house'. Either way, both systems agree that the ascending degree becomes very important in each house.
First, your comment about WH with the ASC degree as most important is correct and true. I discussed the issue of Ptolemy EH with Rob Hand. There is a muddled view on how P. defined the Midheaven. It could be read two ways. Greek can be read with multiple meaning which is why astrologers are re-translating them. These old Greek writers were not exact. Rob Hand thought that Ptolemy could also be read as the EH 10th, called the nonagesimal.
I agree that the WH drawn chart is really clean but it doesn't visually show well how important the ASC is, it's just another point in the chart. EH puts the ASC degree as primary for pointing to the most important central apex for the cardinal houses of Asc, 4th, DSC, 10th.
If you work in WH with an ASC of 29Scorpio, it is visually easy to forget that the last degree is the center of the house. That will not happen when using EH. But we must lessen our fixation of where a house begins or ends. See below on house design.
If you want an expanded discussion of the Greeks, how they copied and studied the Egyptian astrologers and made MANY math/measurement mistakes, read the chapter by Livio Stecchini in Secrets of the Great Pyramids. You will have less respect for the Greeks and more for the Egyptians. The Egyptians had perfected a perfect system of measurements and time that were earth commeasurant, the Greeks mis-understood it and messed it up.
According to Nick Campion in History of Astrology, Vol. 1 & 2, there are 700 years of missing astrological history, with no texts or records.
Well your comments now get into where a house begins or ends. The old square horoscopes had houses in the shape of a triangle, with the apex as the center of the house, and most powerful. When astrologers started drawing round horoscopes, the apex center became the line marking the start of the house, which is why the Gaulquin sector strengths work. Like the Asc extends into the 12th house, above the ASC line, and the 10th extends into the 9th.
You will never forget the power of the house apex center using EH, which makes where the house begins less important.
Remember the Greeks were all wrong about out of sign aspects. Just because they are old and have the first remaining texts, doesn't make it correct.
It's a bit confusing which is why the study of our astrological history is worth knowing.
I agree that the WH drawn chart is really clean but it doesn't visually show well how important the ASC is, it's just another point in the chart. EH puts the ASC degree as primary for pointing to the most important central apex for the cardinal houses of Asc, 4th, DSC, 10th.
If you work in WH with an ASC of 29Scorpio, it is visually easy to forget that the last degree is the center of the house. That will not happen when using EH. But we must lessen our fixation of where a house begins or ends. See below on house design.
If you want an expanded discussion of the Greeks, how they copied and studied the Egyptian astrologers and made MANY math/measurement mistakes, read the chapter by Livio Stecchini in Secrets of the Great Pyramids. You will have less respect for the Greeks and more for the Egyptians. The Egyptians had perfected a perfect system of measurements and time that were earth commeasurant, the Greeks mis-understood it and messed it up.
According to Nick Campion in History of Astrology, Vol. 1 & 2, there are 700 years of missing astrological history, with no texts or records.
Well your comments now get into where a house begins or ends. The old square horoscopes had houses in the shape of a triangle, with the apex as the center of the house, and most powerful. When astrologers started drawing round horoscopes, the apex center became the line marking the start of the house, which is why the Gaulquin sector strengths work. Like the Asc extends into the 12th house, above the ASC line, and the 10th extends into the 9th.
You will never forget the power of the house apex center using EH, which makes where the house begins less important.
Remember the Greeks were all wrong about out of sign aspects. Just because they are old and have the first remaining texts, doesn't make it correct.
It's a bit confusing which is why the study of our astrological history is worth knowing.
Last edited:
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
There is no evidence that Ptolemy was an astrologer. The evidence is that Ptolemy was a mathematician and astronomer with theories on astrology with which he 're-worked' 'gave ancient astrology a make-over'. Ptolemy did not 'use Equal House' because Ptolemy was not a working astrologer. That's the crucial difference between Ptolemy and Vettius Valens
Whole Signs INCLUDES Equal House, because the ascending degree of Whole Signs repeats as a 'sensitive degree' WITHIN EACH WHOLE SIGN HOUSE