Which house system is right for you? Any precise way to "know"?

JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
kennedyrosewhith said:
Sandstone - It's not about sect, it's about where the first house is drawn. If the Ascendant is at 20 degrees of a sign, and there's a planet at 5 degrees of a sign, systems that use the Ascendant will place the planet in the upper half of the chart. Whole signs will place the planet in the lower half.

My question was if the signs on the cusps in the whole signs system matter like they do in quadrant systems, not what the cusps mean.

I suppose none of this is an issue if you don't bother with houses. Are you not supposed to bother with houses in whole signs? I know Rebel said she doesn't think they're very important.
Click to expand...
kennedyrosewhith - the meaning of the word cusp has altered over the centuries

so this change in meaning has affected the understanding of the use of the whole sign system as originally intended

- therefore it is important to understand the difference between what the word 'cusp' meant two thousand years ago when whole sign houses was the original house system http://www.librarising.com/astrology/misc/wholesignhouses.html in comparison with current mainstream understanding of the word 'cusp'

dr. farr provides the following comprehensive elucidation of the original meaning of the word 'cusp' :smile:
dr. farr said:

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...
Click to expand...
 
K

kennedyrosewhith

Well-known member
tsmall said:
I am not sure I understand this, in that the ASC/DC axis does not change in whole sign. Planets above the ASC are above, and below are below, even in whole sign. The major difference is that planets in the same sign as the ASC are in the 1st house, not the 12th, and this is an important distinction. Everyone bothers with houses....well, I think there are some groups that don't, like Magi, but mostly everyone bothers with houses. The question is what do you use to define "houses?" As sandstone has pointed out, astrology is above all a symbolic language that is primarily subjective to the interpretation of the person doing the reading...and so all new astrologers (hey, like me!) need to ask the questions you are asking, try things out, and then ulitmately decide for his/herself what works...and the only way to figure that out is to do it, and see.
Click to expand...

I think we're on the same page. I consider the 1st house as part of the lower half of the chart, and the 12th as part of the upper half. I don't think a planet above the Ascendant belongs in the lower half of the chart in house 1. They should be in the upper half, in house 12.
 
tsmall

tsmall

Premium Member
kennedyrosewhith said:
I think we're on the same page. I consider the 1st house as part of the lower half of the chart, and the 12th as part of the upper half. I don't think a planet above the Ascendant belongs in the lower half of the chart in house 1. They should be in the upper half, in house 12.
Click to expand...

OK. :smile: I am just curious why?

To my understanding (and one of the many reasons I personally prefer whole sign houses) part of the issue with the 12th is that it cannot "see" the ascendant. How can a planet in the same sign as the ASC not "see" it? Or put another way, since the 12th is the most cadent house, how can planets in the same sign as the ASC be cadent?
 
Rebel Uranian

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
tsmall said:
To my understanding (and one of the many reasons I personally prefer whole sign houses) part of the issue with the 12th is that it cannot "see" the ascendant. How can a planet in the same sign as the ASC not "see" it? Or put another way, since the 12th is the most cadent house, how can planets in the same sign as the ASC be cadent?
Click to expand...

This is another good reason for whole signs.
 
K

kennedyrosewhith

Well-known member
I dont think of it as "the 12th house planet can't see the Ascendant", but rather that the Ascendant can't see the 12th house planet. And I don't think being in the same sign should automatically imbue a planet with similar qualities as the Ascendant and 1st house. Yes, they're in the same sign, but they're not one single entity- they're two separate things.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
kennedyrosewhith said:
I dont think of it as "the 12th house planet can't see the Ascendant", but rather that the Ascendant can't see the 12th house planet. And I don't think being in the same sign should automatically imbue a planet with similar qualities as the Ascendant and 1st house. Yes, they're in the same sign, but they're not one single entity- they're two separate things.
Click to expand...
The Ascendant is simply a place or point and is inanimate and therefore 'sees' nothing.

It is the planet that cannot see the ascendant - not vice versa!

EXAMPLE: If someone is walking up a hill but has travelled only half way up that hill and is therefore far from the top of that hill, then it makes sense to say that "the person cannot see the top of the hill". However, it would be ludicrous to say that "the top of the hill cannot see the person":smile:
 
Rebel Uranian

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
JUPITERASC said:
The Ascendant is simply a place or point and is inanimate and therefore 'sees' nothing.

It is the planet that cannot see the ascendant - not vice versa!

EXAMPLE: If someone is walking up a hill but has travelled only half way up that hill and is therefore far from the top of that hill, then it makes sense to say that "the person cannot see the top of the hill". However, it would be ludicrous to say that "the top of the hill cannot see the person":smile:
Click to expand...

Actually, if the hill had eyes, then it could see the person, so technically yes, the top of the hill can "see" the person depending on how the word "see" is defined. The planets are just bodies of rock as far as I know, so they and the Ascendant should be able to "see" each other.
 
K

kennedyrosewhith

Well-known member
For the record, I'm not new to astrology. I've been studying it for years.

Rebel- If the person can't see the top of the hill, then generally the top of the hill (or a person standing there) could not see them. Unless the top of the hill can crane its neck around, but if the Ascendant could do that too (figuratively), then the 12th house wouldn't be hidden.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Rebel Uranian said:
Actually, if the hill had eyes, then it could see the person, so technically yes, the top of the hill can "see" the person depending on how the word "see" is defined. The planets are just bodies of rock as far as I know, so they and the Ascendant should be able to "see" each other.
Click to expand...
"IF" is very different from "HAS"
Rebel Uranian said:
The planets are just bodies of rock as far as I know, so they and the Ascendant should be able to "see" each other.
Click to expand...

Astrologically, planets are 'personified' and therefore are said to 'see'. The Ascendant however is 'a place' and as such conventionally in astrology does not 'see' :smile:
 
Last edited:
tsmall

tsmall

Premium Member
kennedyrosewhith said:
I don't think it makes much sense to look at it from the perspective of the planet. The planet doesn't determine the house, does it?
Click to expand...

No, the planet doesn't determine the house, but does the house rule the planet, or is it the other way around?

Interesting kennedyrose, that you have been studying astrology for years, yet haven't yet understood the way the whole sign house system works. Earlier you asked

kenndyrosewhith said:
So the cusps in whole signs don't have any rulers? Do the signs still mean anything?
Click to expand...

Considering it is called "whole sign" I'd say the answer is pretty obvious.

kennedyrosewhith said:
My question was if the signs on the cusps in the whole signs system matter like they do in quadrant systems, not what the cusps mean.

I suppose none of this is an issue if you don't bother with houses. Are you not supposed to bother with houses in whole signs?
Click to expand...

The easy answer to this question is as has already been explained. The cusps are contained within the signs/houses (they are one in the same, and that is the point), and do not define where the house starts. Signs matter, houses matter, and rulers of both matter. Because one house is one sign, there is only one ruler, which coincidently will also rule the cusp of that house.

For myself, I apologize if the nature of my own answers here have been geared toward someone who appeared to be asking questions based on a lack of astrological knowledge. However, as that is not the case, I want to be clear that what you are really doing is engaging in a debate about whole signs, and not really trying to understand it?
 
K

kennedyrosewhith

Well-known member
JUPITERASC- The sentence directly after the one you quoted explains why.

Tsmall- The only reason I asked those questions was because RebelUranian said whole signs avoids accidental rulership (and also that they don't bother with houses too much, or they don't think the houses are all that important, can't remember the exact quote). That didn't make sense to both my understanding of accidental rulership and houses.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
kennedyrosewhith said:
JUPITERASC- The sentence directly after the one you quoted explains why..
Click to expand...
If you refer to the following sentence
kennedyrosewhith said:
I don't think it makes much sense to look at it from the perspective of the planet. The planet doesn't determine the house, does it?
Click to expand...
Your comment is unclear. Explain your meaning when you say that "looking at it from the perspective of a planet" has something to do with your question "the planet doesn't determine the house, does it?" :smile:
 
Last edited:
Rebel Uranian

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
kennedyrosewhith said:
For the record, I'm not new to astrology. I've been studying it for years.

Rebel- If the person can't see the top of the hill, then generally the top of the hill (or a person standing there) could not see them. Unless the top of the hill can crane its neck around, but if the Ascendant could do that too (figuratively), then the 12th house wouldn't be hidden.
Click to expand...

The 12th house is hidden because it is not in aspect with the 12th. The same is true of the 2nd, 6th, and especially the 8th. The "Water houses" are traditionally "dark houses." The "Earth houses" are not, although the 6th house is usually pretty difficult to see as well. The 2nd trines the 10th and its angle means an increase in personal power so it is not bad depending on who you are.

I have seen a lot of people who are like "I have been practicing astrology for years" (often with a number like 20 years) but they do not understand what I am saying. That is sad, because I have only been doing this for months and I do not feel like I know enough to practice very much without feeling like I am putting someone's life at stake.
 
Last edited:
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Rebel Uranian said:
The 12th house is hidden because it is not in aspect with the 12th. The same is true of the 2nd, 6th, and especially the 8th. The "Water houses" are traditionally "dark houses." The "Earth houses" are not, although the 6th house is usually pretty difficult to see as well. The 2nd trines the 10th and its angle means an increase in personal power so it is not bad depending on who you are.

I have seen a lot of people who are like "I have been practicing astrology for years" (often with a number like 20 years) but they do not understand what I am saying. That is sad, because I have only been doing this for months and I do not feel like I know enough to practice very much without feeling like I am putting someone's life at stake .
Click to expand...
Many modern astrologers do not understand these concepts simply because these concepts are practiced by traditional astrology!:smile:
 
D

dr. farr

Well-known member
One note: the term accidental house rulership refers to a house being under the influence of any other sign/planetary ruler, than its "natural" (mundane) ruler: ie, the mundane ("natural") house rulers (in later Traditional and also in Modernist astrology) start with Aries for the 1st house and go around the circle to Pisces for the 12th house-these are referred to as the "natural" (or, more technically, mundane) rulers of the houses; now in an actual birthchart, if any other signs occupy the 12 houses, then these are referred to as "accidental" house rulers: eg, if Taurus is the ascending sign, it could be referred to as being the "accidental" ruler of the 1st house; in the example, Aries would be on the 12th house, and so Aries would be termed the "accidental ruler" of the 12th house, etc, etc.

Early Western astrology did not have this term (accidental rulership) or concept, as it became developed over the centuries.
 
K

kennedyrosewhith

Well-known member
JUPITERASC- It doesn't make sense to me to, when determining where the influence of a point stretches to (Ascendant), you use a body (planet) that is not that point. Or rather, you use a planet to justify why that point's influence stretches that far. I don't think that's a good way to look at it.

Now I use topocentric. I like how it uses the exact location of the birth to construct the houses, and create cusps (modem definition) that don't fall apart at the poles. I think the chart should accurately reflect the sky, and the 1st house should start at the horizon. So I just can't get behind whole signs.

RebelUranian- I'm assuming you meant the 1st. So it's an aspect thing, then? I don't use aspects by sign (all planets in Aries are trine to all planets in Leo), so again, I can't subscribe to the idea that all planets in the same sign as the Ascendant belong in the 1st house. If a planet is close to the Ascendant, I'll start to interpret it as being conjuct the Ascendant, and operating as if in the 1st.

I didn't mean it like "i've been studying for years and so I'm an expert", but rather "I've been studying for years so I at least know the basics".

Dr. farr- Yeah, that was my understanding of accidental rulerships



I'm getting the impression that the problem here is different ways of thinking, and different ways of approaching astrology.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
kennedyrosewhith said:
JUPITERASC- It doesn't make sense to me to, when determining where the influence of a point stretches to (Ascendant), you use a body (planet) that is not that point. Or rather, you use a planet to justify why that point's influence stretches that far. I don't think that's a good way to look at it.
Click to expand...
Your comment is unclear :smile:
 
K

kennedyrosewhith

Well-known member
I'm referring to saying a planet in the same sign as the Ascendant must be able to "see" it, and therefore belongs in the same house as the Ascendant (the 1st). What does it matter if the planet can "see" the Ascendant, if the planet does not determine where the Ascendant is?
 
Top