(Not) another Whole Signs thread

PlutorisingLee · Apr 30, 2017

Hello everyone,

I hope I'm asking something that wasn't asked before. I know there are countless debates and threads about house systems. I'm specifically very interested in experimenting with my chart using Whole Signs.
Beyond the natural identity crisis that resulted (as expected :whistling:

)
casting my chart in WS made me think I need additional insights to how I'm reading it- wrongly.

My question is thus- does the meaning and values of this system change the reading of the planet placements in the houses?

In Vedic for example readings go well for destiny and what will be or what to do. In Placidus more psychological and free choice emphasis (I think).
What about this basically Hellenistic traditional house system? ...This came into my mind when looking at Jupiter.

In Placidus I have my Jupiter in the 12th house Virgo and of course in WS it goes into my first house. Something I could not relate to much... But decided to keep my mind open.
Perhaps a WS Jupiter in first is somewhat different? Maybe the traditional meaning of it adds something?
Sorry if I'm rambling nonsense. Any help with reading my WS chart is appreciated.
I do find it interesting. It is makes my chart look different but also easy?

p.s Why do you or don't you use Whole Signs?

david starling · Apr 30, 2017

PlutorisingLee said:
Hello everyone,

I hope I'm asking something that wasn't asked before. I know there are countless debates and threads about house systems. I'm specifically very interested in experimenting with my chart using Whole Signs.
Beyond the natural identity crisis that resulted (as expected )
casting my chart in WS made me think I need additional insights to how I'm reading it- wrongly.

My question is thus- does the meaning and values of this system change the reading of the planet placements in the houses?

In Vedic for example readings go well for destiny and what will be or what to do. In Placidus more psychological and free choice emphasis (I think).
What about this basically Hellenistic traditional house system? ...This came into my mind when looking at Jupiter.

In Placidus I have my Jupiter in the 12th house Virgo and of course in WS it goes into my first house. Something I could not relate to much... But decided to keep my mind open.
Perhaps a WS Jupiter in first is somewhat different? Maybe the traditional meaning of it adds something?
Sorry if I'm rambling nonsense. Any help with reading my WS chart is appreciated.
I do find it interesting. It is makes my chart look different but also easy?

p.s Why do you or don't you use Whole Signs?

I see it as different "Life-paths" you choose on an unconscious level. Looking back, I can see that I switched from a Placidus to a Whole-sign Path in my early twenties, and my Mercury/Mars Conjuntion went from H12 to H1. If you think Placidus fits you better, then that's the Life-path you're on now. Your interest in this might mean you're in the process of a changeover yourself! :biggrin:

PlutorisingLee · Apr 30, 2017

david starling said:
I see it as different "Life-paths" you choose on an unconscious level. Looking back, I can see that I switched from a Placidus to a Whole-sign Path in my early twenties, and my Mercury/Mars Conjuntion went from H12 to H1. If you think Placidus fits you better, then that's the Life-path you're on now. Your interest in this might mean you're in the process of a changeover yourself!

Perhaps

. I do feel this can work- identifying with a placement in order to change yourself or express something new. I had a feeling this might be like a life path. Great idea!
I take it nothing else changed between your Placidus chart and WS? Although a Mars&Mercury going into the 1st...Isn't it confusing that we can feel a 12th house planet can also be a in 1st house placement?
I suppose depends how you look at it- as spiritual evolvement from house 1-12 or as being better expressed in the first house.
I don't know. for me, Jupiter in the 1st house is always an optimist-something I am not.

david starling · Apr 30, 2017

PlutorisingLee said:
Perhaps . I do feel this can work- identifying with a placement in order to change yourself or express something new. I had a feeling this might be like a life path. Great idea!
I take it nothing else changed between your Placidus chart and WS? Although a Mars&Mercury going into the 1st...Isn't it confusing that we can feel a 12th house planet can also be a in 1st house placement?
I suppose depends how you look at it- as spiritual evolvement from house 1-12 or as being better expressed in the first house.
I don't know. for me, Jupiter in the 1st house is always an optimist-something I am not.

If it moves from H12 to H1 (it's an unconscious process), you'll find yourself feeling more confident and optimistic, and more able to "go your own way". It's a gradual shift, but once it's completed, you'd be firmly described by Whole-sign. I start a reading with both Placidus and Whole-sign, and see which works better. Then it's "either/or", not both at once. Another change for me was :uranus:

in Gemini moving from H3 to H4, and it manifested as an intense interest in studying what it will be like to actually live in the Aquarian Age (which I believe will begin in the relatively near future), instead of pretending that we're already living in it now.

JUPITERASC · Apr 30, 2017

PlutorisingLee said:
Hello everyone,

I hope I'm asking something that wasn't asked before.
.

a comparison of Whole Signs and Placidus applied to Queen Elizabeth II of Englands chart
was discussed August 2011 at http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39669 :smile:

dr. farr said:
In comparing results of whole sign vs Placidus
(and, by the way all other quadrant house formats)
applied to Queen Elizabeth's profected chart, notice this:

-the Pauline profection to the monthly time period of the event (her father's death) and her elevation to Queen, falls in Libra (by any house system, and by no house system, like in Cosmobiologie)
-however, we are considering domification here in this thread
-now, in quadrant systems (like Placidus), the profection to the month of the event, falls in the 9th house; there is truth in the indications drawn from this 9th house, because in fact the event, the death of her father, did in fact make her, defacto, head of the Church of England, certainly a valid 9th house affinity
-but, in whole sign (exclusively) the profection of the ascendant to the month of the critical event, falls in the 10th house: rulership of the nation is affinitive to the 10th, head of government also, as well as the "highest advancement", which becoming Queen (of a constitutional monarchy) certainly is!
-now, here is the point: which house is MORE specific to the level/qaulity of what actually happened? Which house is more "pertinent" to what happened? The 9th, becoming head of the Church of England, or the 10th, becoming Queen of England, head of the government, rising up in the greatest advancement possible (in a monarchy)?

And that is my point; not that the houses of quadrant formats are wrong-not at all; but rather, that, often, the whole sign houses are MORE specific, more descriptive of what actually IS, than the quadrant methods yield in their house indications; and NOT always, maybe not even most of the time, but, I say, OFTEN, and I have in fact frequently found this to be the case.

Couple more examples, along this line of thinking, to follow.

PlutorisingLee · Apr 30, 2017

JUPITERASC said:
a comparison of Whole Signs and Placidus applied to Queen Elizabeth II of Englands chart
was discussed August 2011 at http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39669

Thanks this is very interesting! I guess what I'm attempting to formulate is that what sort of attitudes would be behind Whole House method. Should i read it as any other chart or study Greek Astrologers or what?
Robert Hand describes my confusion in his whole signs artical:

For a modern astrologer the Whole Sign system may seem difficult to
accept. The idea that the whole rising sign might constitute the 1 house st
or place does not seem too difficult to accept when the Ascendant falls
into the early degrees of a sign and there are no planets in the rising sign
that are above the Ascendant. But when we have a situation like Edward's
where Mercury is in the 11 place by Koch but the 1 by Whole Signs, to th st
say nothing of Jupiter, it gets to be a bit harder to accept. Let me assure the reader that I, too, have had my problems with this.

He goes on to mention it matters where within the first house the planet is. Either way, I find it hard that a 12 house Jupiter can be read as a first house Jupiter. Not mentioning all the other big changes.

tripleooo · Apr 30, 2017

Hi there!

I’ve actually created a similar thread about the whole signs system a couple of days ago. There are not so many replies as of now… I’ll happily contribute to your thread though. :happy:

As for your question, no, the houses mean the same and it doesn't matter what system you use. If we're speaking about the Western astrology, of course. I suspect it's mostly the same with the Vedic astrology, but I can't comment on that. "Psychological and free choice emphasis" is a modernist point of view, I believe traditionally it was less about life choices and more about destiny and fate.

By the way, I noticed that some people change their house systems (or tropical to sidereal) just because it puts their planets in better positions. In terms of house systems the whole signs system seems to be the most popular in this respect. You’ve got your Sun in the 8th house? No worries, it’s in the 9th now. Disappointed with your Mercury in the 12th? Silly you, enjoy it being in the 1st house! (I used these examples because the 8th and 12th house are traditionally considered to be bad, while the 9th house is the best house for the Sun and the 1st house is the best house for Mercury. It wasn’t directed at anybody). I can actually understand that, I could be like that too, but I think staying true to yourself is much more important.

obsidianmineral · Apr 30, 2017

tripleooo said:
Hi there!

I’ve actually created a similar thread about the whole signs system a couple of days ago. There are not so many replies there as of now… I’ll happily contribute to your thread though.

In my personal experience, I don’t think the whole signs system describes me well. The descriptions are hit-and-miss, but I agree with probably everything my Placidus chart tells about me. It’s a shame though, I really like the traditional astrology and its methods, but the oldest house system somehow doesn’t resonate with me at all. I could desribe everything in detail but I don't think anyone would read it and that's not what you asked for anyway.

As for your question, no, the houses mean the same and it doesn't matter what system you use. If we're speaking about the Western astrology, of course. I suspect it's mostly the same with the Vedic astrology, but I can't comment on that. "Psychological and free choice emphasis" is a modernist point of view, I believe traditionally it was less about life choices and more about destiny and fate.

By the way, I noticed that some people change their house systems (or tropical to sidereal) just because it puts their planets in better positions. In terms of house systems the whole signs system seems to be the most popular in this respect. You’ve got your Sun in the 8th house? No worries, it’s in the 9th now. Disappointed with your Mercury in the 12th? Silly you, enjoy it being in the 1st house! (I used these examples because the 8th and 12th house are traditionally considered to be bad, while the 9th house is the best house for the Sun and the 1st house is the best house for Mercury. It wasn’t directed at anybody). I can actually understand that, I could be like that too, but I think staying true to yourself is much more important.

I know that feeling. Having a planet placed in a cadent house and it being in angular using whole signs. I still ignore whole signs. Just like you, it doesn't resonate with me.

JUPITERASC · Apr 30, 2017

PlutorisingLee said:
Thanks this is very interesting!
I guess what I'm attempting to formulate is that
what sort of attitudes
would be behind Whole House method.
Should i read it as any other chart
or study Greek Astrologers or what?
Robert Hand describes my confusion in his whole signs artical:

He goes on to mention it matters where within the first house the planet is.
Either way, I find it hard that a 12 house Jupiter can be read as a first house Jupiter.
Not mentioning all the other big changes.

The original use of whole sign houses involved the use of a "sensitive point" within each house
that was at the same degree as the ascendant.
Transits to this point could produce events.
Additionally there were the ingresses into signs
Thus, Ancient Astrologers accurately predicted events while using Whole Sign houses
and without the use of Placidus
(whose ancestors had not yet been born).
Placidus was unknown at the time of the inception of Whole Sign Houses
- the original house system that has been used
to time and predict events since ancient astrological times

Chris Brennan wrote the following in 2007
Some scholars such as Jim Tester have pointed out that
the development of the houses in the Hellenistic period may have been partially motivated
by an earlier Egyptian tradition of decanic astrology
which appears to have assigned certain topics such as livelihood, illness, marriage, children
to specific portions of the diurnal rotation.
This Egyptian tradition was then synthesized with the Mesopotamian system
of the 12 signs of the zodiac.

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...

A Yian · Apr 30, 2017

Hello. I'm a Whole signs user

PlutorisingLee said:
Beyond the natural identity crisis that resulted (as expected )

It's a big problem, especially when people try to analyze the math and sense behind any house system. It's understandable: I feel unconfortable because my conception of myself changes. This should not be, I shoul not adapt the conception of myself by reading my chart. The chart is not beyond the awareness of myself, it wont tell me anything that I (or other) do not see of me. For example: I think that my ascendant ruler is Uranus, then I tell myself that I have an uranian temperament; But then I read more and I discover that my true ascendant ruler is Saturn, and I tell my self that I have a saturnian temperament. It's crazy! I was a saturnian person from the beginning, and if I could not see that in the chart, the problem was: a) astrology doesn't work or; b) I don't know how to read the chart, but I'm not different than I've always been.

PlutorisingLee said:
My question is thus- does the meaning and values of this system change the reading of the planet placements in the houses?

No. Each house system's values doesn't change. In fact, the house systems do not have values. The systems are only there and they tell us the same things about the world and the life of the native, the country or whatever We've raised the chart for.

Hose systems change as scientific theories change. One day someone analyzed the math behind the first house system and concluded that it had to be modified in order to respect some astronomical factor which He considered as important. Then someone else arrived and concluded that the system had to be modified again, in order to respect another astronomical factor that He considered important. So over and over again. There are many quotes such as: "Reason tells us that factor X is the most important to take into consideration," or "Proceeding in the following way is what is most in agreement with natural reason", or "What X said is what is most in agreement with reason and right thinking ".

PlutorisingLee said:
In Vedic for example readings go well for destiny and what will be or what to do. In Placidus more psychological and free choice emphasis (I think).

But both astrologies have same origin and same purpose. Modern Western astrology -and modern Western house systems- seem more psychological and "free choice" due to denying their own tradition and origins.

PlutorisingLee said:
Perhaps a WS Jupiter in first is somewhat different? Maybe the traditional meaning of it adds something?

No. It's the same interpretation. Fist house is the life of the native (and things that happen to the native), the boddy, appearance and temperament. But a traditional judgment adds many more details to the condition of the planet. It is not enough to know what house Jupiter is in, rather we need to know if He is strong, if He is fit to perform his task, if He is impeded, if he is helped, what was the last thing He did, what is next, etc. .

PlutorisingLee said:
Why do you or don't you use Whole Signs?

Because, for me, Whole Signs is the only system that respects the true meaning and sense of houses. For example, in modern house systems, you may find the first house cusp and the twelfth house cusp falling in the same sign, that can not be; the twelfth house loses all its meaning. You can also see that the first house cusp and the ninth house cusp do not form a trine, so the ninth house loses its meaning.

This is all my opinion and thinking :smile:

A Yian · Apr 30, 2017

tripleooo said:
By the way, I noticed that some people change their house systems (or tropical to sidereal) just because it puts their planets in better positions. In terms of house systems the whole signs system seems to be the most popular in this respect. You’ve got your Sun in the 8th house? No worries, it’s in the 9th now. Disappointed with your Mercury in the 12th? Silly you, enjoy it being in the 1st house! (I used these examples because the 8th and 12th house are traditionally considered to be bad, while the 9th house is the best house for the Sun and the 1st house is the best house for Mercury. It wasn’t directed at anybody). I can actually understand that, I could be like that too, but I think staying true to yourself is much more important.

obsidianmineral said:
I know that feeling. Having a planet placed in a cadent house and it being in angular using whole signs. I still ignore whole signs. Just like you, it doesn't resonate with me.

I have three planets in Scorpio. If I use quadrant houses, they fall in the 11th house, but in whole sign houses, they fall in the 12th house... That's not a problem for me, I still consider Whole signs a more rational and with more sense system XD

tripleooo · Apr 30, 2017

A Yian said:
I have three planets in Scorpio. If I use quadrant houses, they fall in the 11th house, but in whole sign houses, they fall in the 12th house... That's not a problem for me, I still consider Whole signs a more rational and with more sense system XD

Well, you're certainly a unique individual then, what can I say. :smile:

A Yian · Apr 30, 2017

I'm just objetive; my life is like it is, no matter the house system

waybread · Apr 30, 2017

PlutorisingLee said:
....

My question is thus- does the meaning and values of this system change the reading of the planet placements in the houses?

In Vedic for example readings go well for destiny and what will be or what to do. In Placidus more psychological and free choice emphasis (I think).
What about this basically Hellenistic traditional house system? ...This came into my mind when looking at Jupiter.

.....
I do find it interesting. It is makes my chart look different but also easy?

p.s Why do you or don't you use Whole Signs?

The different house systems do not relate to destiny, choice, psychological modern astrology, or even to traditional astrology; although I think whole signs was the one most used in Hellenistic astrology.

Most of the house systems were developed when astrologers all did traditional astrology lived prior to the 19th century. There are a few newer ones from the modern astrology era.

Basically house systems relate to different ways of dividing up celestial space and time. You may have a rational preference for one or the other, but this wouldn't be something like fatalism or Christianity's emphasis on "free will."

Placidus is prefered by many astrologers because its house cusps are more sensitive to timing events. But if you do not have a solid birth time, you would lose this advantage, and the house cusps might even convey a sense of accuracy that isn't justified.

If you know the rising sign but not the ascendant degree to the minute, whole signs might be a good choice. Placidus house cusps also get pretty skewed at high latitudes.

Ultimately the "best" house system is the one that is the best fit with your life. Someone else may respond better to a different system. Look and see what happens when planets move from one house to the next, whether and when events relating to the next house get triggered.

Generally I use Placidus, but I am not opposed to whole signs. Especially for people with a late degree rising, whole signs will give a different picture.

A Yian · Apr 30, 2017

waybread said:
Ultimately the "best" house system is the one that is the best fit with your life. Someone else may respond better to a different system. Look and see what happens when planets move from one house to the next, whether and when events relating to the next house get triggered.

With respect to you, and without the intention of starting a fight, amicably I say that this can not be. Astrological tools can not function well with one person and work poorly with another one. Some tools may work well with some type of judgment and another tools may work well with another type of judgment. Some system will be useful for some type of analysis and another system will be useful for another type of analysis, it may be, but the tool that works for one person and one type of judgment, should work for all the people in the same condition.

Does the law of gravity work only for some people? It is the same with astrology, and if it doesn't work, the problem is not the tool, but the astrologer, who is unable to read the sky correctly.

david starling · Apr 30, 2017

A Yian said:
With respect to you, and without the intention of starting a fight, amicably I say that this can not be. Astrological tools can not function well with one person and work poorly with another. One tool may work well with some type of judgment and another tool may work well with another type of judgment. Some system will be useful for some type of analysis and another system will be useful for another type of analysis, it may be, but the tool that works for one person and one type of judgment, should work for all the people in the same condition.

Does the law of gravity work only for some people? It is the same with astrology, and if it doesn't work, the problem is not the tool, but the astrologer, who is unable to read the sky correctly.

Which House method are you recommending, and how are you defining "same condition"? Remember, there are different circumstances OUTSIDE of the Chart, such as family, societal, and economic circumstances. Those are what I believe can cause an alteration of Life-path, and in turn, a change in which House method is best descriptive.

A Yian · May 1, 2017

david starling said:
Which House method are you recommending, and how are you defining "same condition"? Remember, there are different circumstances outside of the Chart, such as family, societal, and economic circumstances.

Whole sign houses, but I'm not defending the use of the whole sign system, but the idea that whatever system we find more rational and correct -according to astronomical arguments- have to be used without discrmination. If such a system is accurate, by logic, it should work in all sublunar world.

And it's true, there are different circumstances, we don't judge the same for a king than for a normal person. But I meant something elsse, it's no about a Socioeconomic issue (sorry for my bad english). If happen that we're judging the same thing, in general, why would we use a system for a king and another system for a normal person? Why would we use a system for an european and another system for an asian?

david starling · May 1, 2017

A Yian, astrology enables us to see things otherwise unclear, or even hidden entirely. So, I use the metaphor of "corrective lenses" for improving vision. Just as one must "try on" different lenses to which enables the clearest vision in the physical sense, different methods should be employed to determine the best choice (or choices) to optimize one's own personal Astrological vision. That includes the more contentious choice between Tropical and Sidereal Zodiacs. Theoretical arguments are useless in this regard--it has to be done experientially. Like looking through someone else's glasses that give that person 20/20 vision, and saying, "Everything looks blurry to me--you couldn't possibly be seeing clearly through these!"

PlutorisingLee · May 1, 2017

This discussion is fascinating and I think important.
Forgive my simplification but I I’ll respond to one popular view and why it others me.
First, the “do whatever fits you” view or “whatever chart feels right” view. A Yian said:

Astrological tools can not function well with one person and work poorly with another one. Some tools may work well with some type of judgment and another tools may work well with another type of judgment.

I agree, a system should work!
To me doing whatever fits my desires doesn't seem very honest. I might like one chart more than the other but….The first time I have seen my Placidus chart I thought “this isn’t like me at all!” Until I learned more and now it seems to fit…So whether it looks right or not at first glance…I can’t close my mind to Whole Signs due to this argument.
So...Now that's out of the way...

I'll keep looking into it.

PlutorisingLee · May 1, 2017

tripleooo said:
Hi there!

I’ve actually created a similar thread about the whole signs system a couple of days ago. There are not so many replies as of now… I’ll happily contribute to your thread though.

In my personal experience, I don’t think the whole signs system describes me well. The descriptions are hit-and-miss, but I agree with probably everything my Placidus chart tells about me. It’s a shame though, I really like the traditional astrology and its methods, but the oldest house system somehow doesn’t resonate with me at all. I could desribe everything in detail but I don't think anyone would read it and that's not what you asked for anyway.

Hi Triploo! thank you for joining in...Maybe we can help each other reach answers. You can give examples from your chart of course. I give with my Jupiter being hard to read in Whole Signs. Honestly, I think we shouldn't' choose a right/wrong chart just based on a fit or a feeling! That is such a tricky thing to do. What if we don't have the tools to read it right? Just like until your started understanding your Placidus chart it made little sense. No?
And what made sense was based on your knowledge of Astrology.

As for your question, no, the houses mean the same and it doesn't matter what system you use. If we're speaking about the Western astrology, of course. I suspect it's mostly the same with the Vedic astrology, but I can't comment on that. "Psychological and free choice emphasis" is a modernist point of view, I believe traditionally it was less about life choices and more about destiny and fate.

Yes probably the case...If the houses are read the same how can both Placidus and Whole signs be right? Unless, they read the same thing differently in some way.

By the way, I noticed that some people change their house systems (or tropical to sidereal) just because it puts their planets in better positions. In terms of house systems the whole signs system seems to be the most popular in this respect. You’ve got your Sun in the 8th house? No worries, it’s in the 9th now. Disappointed with your Mercury in the 12th? Silly you, enjoy it being in the 1st house! (I used these examples because the 8th and 12th house are traditionally considered to be bad, while the 9th house is the best house for the Sun and the 1st house is the best house for Mercury. It wasn’t directed at anybody). I can actually understand that, I could be like that too, but I think staying true to yourself is much more important.

You made me laugh. Great examples. Actually, in my case my "fun" 8th house Mercury and Venus move into the 9th. BUT with Mars moving into the 8th house in WS- I still get a good reading on that! See? I can still have a similar reading about my love nature just with different placements. I admit it is confusing.

(Not) another Whole Signs thread

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member