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

I use whole signs. I struggled for years on which to uses and finally went with which fit me better.

For one, my temper is way to short and energy way too high for mars to be in the 12th. It's hard for me to hide anger and the only people I sirpreaa my anger with is my family(mars square a 4th house Neptune). My sun is here too, I'm not a shy person by any means and if I feel like a doormat, I'll go confront those who've angered me . Both are in libra.


I got Venus Pluto and mercury in Scorpio in the second. Money is a deep rooted obsession of mine and I'm charitable when I have some.


The third house is what gets me. Uranus and Saturn are there and in school my behavior was erratic. I went from being quiet and controlled to disruptive and rebellious, partly due to my ADHD and me spitting out my ritalin 70% of the time.

Alot of other factors help put into this, like my house rulers in certain house like my 7th house ruler in the first house and how important I realize my image is(immediate, first impression).


Also Saturn in Scorpio is in my second house right now as a transit. The bill collectors have come a calling and right now I'm torn between an immediate decision with my money, gotta pick which is more important, the short term or long term, one is destructive Im sure of. Since Saturn came in this house, I've been stressing over money!!!

Well it was in Scorpio, o guess it's retrograde maybeNor my calculations are skewed

I use topocentric. It's what makes the most sense to me and i like how it incorporates the exact location, but i usually end up using Placidus since for most charts it gives the same results. I pretty much refuse to use whole signs at all. I feel like sticking a planet in the 1st house when it's above the horizon, or in the 7th house when it's actually below the horizon, does not make sense.

kennedyrosewhith said:

I use topocentric. It's what makes the most sense to me and i like how it incorporates the exact location, but i usually end up using Placidus since for most charts it gives the same results. I pretty much refuse to use whole signs at all. I feel like sticking a planet in the 1st house when it's above the horizon, or in the 7th house when it's actually below the horizon, does not make sense.

Click to expand...

How about taking sect into account?

What do you mean?

Sect is a traditional concept, where planets are considered to be either aligned with the night or the day, and their place either above or below the horizon gives a different quality to how the planet manifests.

So for example, with whole sign houses and a 15 degree ascendant, Jupiter in the top 15 degrees is considered to have a different quality than when he is in the 15 degrees below the ascendant. Still 1st house though.

http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2008/11/25/the-astrology-of-sect/

I use Alchabitius . . . .
i decided that Alchabitius was the most accurate for me by monitoring transitions of planets, etc. from one house to another . . . .

the multitude of house-systems . . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_(astrology)
wikipedia search term "House_(astrology)"
link is odd . . . . ?


best regards,
Ion

Moog said:

Sect is a traditional concept, where planets are considered to be either aligned with the night or the day, and their place either above or below the horizon gives a different quality to how the planet manifests.

So for example, with whole sign houses and a 15 degree ascendant, Jupiter in the top 15 degrees is considered to have a different quality than when he is in the 15 degrees below the ascendant. Still 1st house though.

http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2008/11/25/the-astrology-of-sect/

Click to expand...

Sect is useful. I use the same model as dr. farr and the Vedics, with the Sun, Venus, and Jupiter as diurnal, and the Moon, Mars, and Saturn as nocturnal. It is a moderate consideration to me: it can have a strong impact (such as if a planet is in Hayz, which means it is in period, sign, and hemisphere) but a planet being out of sect ~= death (or worse) like Hellenists seem to have thought.

If I have not said this on this thread: Whole signs because I cannot stand accidental rulership. Houses do not seem to be very important. Sect goes above them in my opinion.

Moog said:

Sect is a traditional concept, where planets are considered to be either aligned with the night or the day, and their place either above or below the horizon gives a different quality to how the planet manifests.

So for example, with whole sign houses and a 15 degree ascendant, Jupiter in the top 15 degrees is considered to have a different quality than when he is in the 15 degrees below the ascendant. Still 1st house though.

http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2008/11/25/the-astrology-of-sect/

Click to expand...

I just don't think a planet above the horizon belongs in the lower half of the chart, and vice versa.


Rebel- how does whole signs avoid accidental rulership?

You would need to understand the concept of "sect" before you can see it in action. Basically, there are diurnal planets (those that are naturally "happier" when it is daytime) and nocturnal planets (those that are naturally "happier" when it is nighttime.) So the Sun is naturally "in sect" during the day, and the Moon is naturally "in sect" during the night. Makes sense? Then, there are planets whose nature lend themselves to perform better during the day, and planets whose nature lend themselves to perform better during the night. Moon, Venus, Mars are by nature more suited to night, and Sun, Jupiter and Saturn to the day. Mercury, as always, can go either way, and his sect will depend on where he is in relation to the Sun.

Whole signs avoids the issue of accidental rulership because with whole sign (or equal house) each house is only 30*. Accidental rulership can only occur with quadrant based systems that allow for intercepted signs...waybread explained it well here...

waybread said:

Accidental house cusp rulers or lords are the planets that rule the signs on house cusps. The rule is, "The house over which a planet rules serves the purposes of the house in which that planet stands." (according to Karen Hamaker-Zondag, The House Connection.) You can use either modern or traditional rulers, or both. So if the ruler of your 12th house is in the 12, that reinforces the 12th house meanings of your 12th house planets.

Click to expand...

I understand sect, I read the link. I just don't think a planet that's above the horizon at the time of the chart drawing should be anywhere but in the upper half of the chart.

So the cusps in whole signs don't have any rulers? Do the signs still mean anything?

kennedyrosewhith said:

I understand sect, I read the link. I just don't think a planet that's above the horizon at the time of the chart drawing should be anywhere but in the upper half of the chart.

So the cusps in whole signs don't have any rulers? Do the signs still mean anything?

Click to expand...

a planet above the horizon is in the upper half... sect is not capable of a crazy trick of putting it below the horizon when it is above the horizon..

if you like the idea of putting things in nice little boxes with the lines defining the boxes, then you might be better off working for walmart, then looking at astro charts... doing astrology requires some imagination and it is not as simple as putting things in boxes..

the idea of what cusp means is worth an exploration... does the crest of a wave mean that it is where the wave starts, or is it the peak of the wave? if you think of astrology as vibrational, as opposed to divided up into things that can be put on a truck for shipping overseas for example, i think you will be doing yourself a favour and getting closer to the meaning of the idea of cusps.. cheers -

kennedyrosewhith said:

I understand sect, I read the link. I just don't think a planet that's above the horizon at the time of the chart drawing should be anywhere but in the upper half of the chart.

Click to expand...

The Ascendant/Descendant angle still defines the horizon. Planets above the horizon remain above the horizon, and planets below remain below.

I've attached a chart so you can perhaps get it visually. In this chart, Jupiter is in the 7th house and above the horizon. Mars is just below and in the 7th house.

So the cusps in whole signs don't have any rulers? Do the signs still mean anything?

Click to expand...

Yes the signs still have meaning, and rulers. Just like if you cast the chart with equal houses or placidus, or any of the other popular house division systems.

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.

Moog said:

The Ascendant/Descendant angle still defines the horizon. Planets above the horizon remain above the horizon, and planets below remain below.

I've attached a chart so you can perhaps get it visually. In this chart, Jupiter is in the 7th house and above the horizon. Mars is just below and in the 7th house.

Yes the signs still have meaning, and rulers. Just like if you cast the chart with equal houses or placidus, or any of the other popular house division systems.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the example I gave in my comment just above better explains what I mean? I'd lean more towards Mars in the 7th for that chart, too.

Then I don't really understand how whole signs avoids accidental rulership, but I guess that's a question for Rebel.

If my understanding of the term accidental rulership is the same as yours, then it doesn't.

k-r-w

i discovered when reading older literature on astrology that house was another word for place and that it was connected to the signs.. in other words (and i am simplifying this here) sign and house meant the same thing! a few thousand years later the way these astro ideas are presented are very different..

i have a few planets above and below the horizon line.. i have had 35 years to ponder whether they are in the 12 or 1, or 6 or 7 house... i have been exposed to a lot of different literature on houses and i have tried a few different ones thinking that i could understand myself better if i could understand just what was meant by this idea of 'house' that i had learned about a long time ago... i do appreciate your genuine concern and i was being silly saying some of what i said to you, when in fact i am often quite serious in wanting to be of help to others..

for a long time i worked with equal house system, but most people do a superficial read on what it is, without actually knowing what it is... the cusp is indeed the center of the house and the 'crest of the wave' as i was implying in the earlier post when you look into indian or vedic astrology... a planet on either side -if in the same sign - is indeed a part of that house as i understand astrology... in other words i don't think signs can be divided up based on a hierarchy of making the midheaven axis and the ascendant axis the basis for house systems which they generally are with most of the house systems you will learn about.. but, that said, you really have to spend a lot of time doing astrology to reach your own conclusion on all of this.. it helps if you have a planet near the horizon line to want to understand it more deeply...

i think the sign matters.. i think it's position in relation to the ascendant axis does matter.. i think the sign the midheaven axis lands in does matter.. i think all of these questions are very meaningful and useful to ask and i think you have to be patient in not wanting to come to a definitive answer on them too quickly also.. i think astrology is 80% art and about 20% science.. i do like what rebel u said and would like to emphasize it in my own way..

we have planets, signs, houses, aspects and a number of other technical considerations that you can weigh more strongly or weakly depending on your artistic orientation... each of us has to figure this out for ourselves in our own way as i see it.. you look at your chart, or the chart of a friend and you try to make sense of it, via the transits, or the data and however you opt to process it all... a number of decisions are made all along the way and it is challenging, but if you keep an open mind and experiment, i think you will be quite good at it... hopefully this is of some use to you.. cheers kennedyrosewhith james

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...

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.

Yes, sign rulers on the cusps in whole signs matter, as well as dignities and debilities, and angularity, and a whole host of other considerations, but ultimately, it is an art...and the medium for interpretation is up to the artist. You can work with oil, or watercolor, or clay or metal (or music!) as long as what you produce works...

There have been many threads here about house systems, and here is a recent one that really explains whole signs, as well as the way cusps are interpreted in them.

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42613

Moog said:

If my understanding of the term accidental rulership is the same as yours, then it doesn't.

Click to expand...

I have heard the term (perhaps incorrectly) applied to the ruler of a house cusp being separate from the ruler of a sign cusp. In whole signs, houses = signs so this does not happen. I hardly bother with houses, so do not listen to me.

Rebel Uranian said:

I have heard the term (perhaps incorrectly) applied to the ruler of a house cusp being separate from the ruler of a sign cusp. In whole signs, houses = signs so this does not happen. I hardly bother with houses, so do not listen to me.

Click to expand...

AFAIC accidental house rulership simply refers to the houses being determined by where they occur in the chart; i.e. conditional on the sign rising; in a scorpio rising chart, the 1st house is ruled by Mars, in a Libra rising chart, Venus, etc.

Many modern astrologers assign what is called a 'natural' rulership of each house of the horoscope to a different planet, in the same way as the zodiac signs are said to have rulers. Traditionally, however, rulership of houses was understood to apply only in the individual birth-chart, in what is called an 'accidental' rulership.

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domicile_(astrology)#Rulership_of_Houses