A doubt about Whole sign houses

A Yian said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

(forum rules)

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.

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.

I'll begin with Abu Ali Al Khayyat

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.

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.

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.

Innayat said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

tsmall said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Innayat said:

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.

Click to expand...

Use BOTH

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

@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.

JUPITERASC said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.