What's more accurate house system?

Deirdre

Well-known member
When we put out a chart, astro.com uses a default system placidus and i never changed the house system.

BUT

What's the most accurate house system to read charts?

My natal changes some planets in houses, depending on which i use.

For example. If i use Equal house, my chart changes are:

- kiron passes from 9th to 8th.i have taurus moon there;

- jupiter/ uranus passes from 3rd to 2nd House;

- sun passes from 11th to the 12house;

What are the main differences on reading it natally? Does it changes drastically the reading?

https://postimg.org/image/4ymohe3p3/
 
Last edited:

Claire19

Well-known member
how you can ascertain what is the right house system for you is to track the transits and see what influences are happening in what house. This takes time and expertise. Equal house system gives more even house space and if you are living near the extreme ends of the globe such as near the poles I feel this is the best.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
When we put out a chart, astro.com uses a default system placidus and i never changed the house system.

BUT

What's the most accurate house system to read charts?

My natal changes some planets in houses, depending on which i use.

For example. If i use Equal house, my chart changes are:

- kiron passes from 9th to 8th.i have taurus moon there;

- jupiter/ uranus passes from 3rd to 2nd House;

- sun passes from 11th to the 12house;

What are the main differences on reading it natally?
Does it changes drastically the reading?


https://postimg.org/image/4ymohe3p3/

There are multiple opinions on this issue
:smile:

Many use Whole Sign Houses to determine TOPICS
then use any quadrant system to assess planetary strength


THE FOLLOWING WHEEL ILLUSTRATES TOPICS


astrological-houses-02.jpg
 

DavidMcCann

Active member
When I learned astrology way back when, there was a fad in the UK for Equal House so that's what I learned. Like most of my generation, I eventually ditched it for Placidus.

The idea that quadrant systems give less even house spaces depends on what you mean by "even". Looking at the chart of W. B. Yeats and using Placidus, the tenth house encloses 17° of the ecliptic, compared with 65° for the first house. But on the day of his birth, using the Equal House system, the Moon spent 74 minutes in the first house but only 55 in the tenth ; by Placidus , she spent the same time in each.

The idea that Equal House survives in the polar regions is also dubious. I calculated the Equal House position of the Sun at hourly intervals for the birthday and birthplace of Marie Peary. The Sun rose from the first into the twelfth, moved normally through to the eleventh, but then took a flying leap into the eighth, before proceeding on its way to set into the sixth! Of course, the Sun wasn't jumping: the observer would have seen nothing out of the ordinary. What actually jumped was the Ascendant, when it turned retrograde and jumped 180°.

The idea of using the Whole Sign system for topics and quadrant houses for strength is very modern. It came about from Robert Schmidt and his associates misunderstanding an ancient text because they didn't realise that a passage was an later insertion.

The real problem with the "house division question" is that people generally asked the wrong question. They should have asked "how do I find the position of a planet in the cycle of its daily motion?" but instead they asked "How do I find the boundaries of the houses in the ecliptic?" But how can you answer the second question until you've answered the first? I'd say the answer to the real question is Placidus.

The reason why they asked the wrong question was that having spent ages calculating the zodiacal positions of 7 planets from first principles (no ephemerides), the last thing they wanted to do was repeat the process for mundane positions. Finding 6 cusps was a far easier proposition: using an astrolabe there were no calculations and even with a table of ascensions the toughest calculation was dividing by 3!
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
When I learned astrology way back when, there was a fad in the UK for Equal House so that's what I learned. Like most of my generation, I eventually ditched it for Placidus.

The idea that quadrant systems give less even house spaces depends on what you mean by "even". Looking at the chart of W. B. Yeats and using Placidus, the tenth house encloses 17° of the ecliptic, compared with 65° for the first house. But on the day of his birth, using the Equal House system, the Moon spent 74 minutes in the first house but only 55 in the tenth ; by Placidus , she spent the same time in each.

The idea that Equal House survives in the polar regions is also dubious. I calculated the Equal House position of the Sun at hourly intervals for the birthday and birthplace of Marie Peary. The Sun rose from the first into the twelfth, moved normally through to the eleventh, but then took a flying leap into the eighth, before proceeding on its way to set into the sixth! Of course, the Sun wasn't jumping: the observer would have seen nothing out of the ordinary. What actually jumped was the Ascendant, when it turned retrograde and jumped 180°.

The idea of using the Whole Sign system for topics and quadrant houses for strength is very modern. It came about from Robert Schmidt and his associates misunderstanding an ancient text because they didn't realise that a passage was an later insertion.

The real problem with the "house division question" is that people generally asked the wrong question. They should have asked "how do I find the position of a planet in the cycle of its daily motion?" but instead they asked "How do I find the boundaries of the houses in the ecliptic?" But how can you answer the second question until you've answered the first? I'd say the answer to the real question is Placidus.

The reason why they asked the wrong question was that having spent ages calculating the zodiacal positions of 7 planets from first principles (no ephemerides), the last thing they wanted to do was repeat the process for mundane positions. Finding 6 cusps was a far easier proposition: using an astrolabe there were no calculations and even with a table of ascensions the toughest calculation was dividing by 3!
dr. farr has not posted for some time due to health concerns
however
he posted the following historical notes on the use of whole sign houses
some years ago
:smile:

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...
 

DavidMcCann

Active member
… in whole sign the cusps are NOT the 0 degree "borders" of sign/houses at all, and never were so regarded! … the sensitive point in whole sign houses … is a direct projection from the ascending degree.
I know of no Greek text that contains this idea! If you look at the surviving Greek charts, three-quarters do not give the degree of the ascendant.

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 (Alcabitius in the West, and the closely related to whole sign Equal house, in Vedic astrology)
No. The first quadrant systems developed gradually in Antiquity.
1. Equal House appears to be the system used by Ptolemy, it was certainly used in some of the texts translated by Firmicus (5th century), and it appears as an interpolation in Valens (pre-5th century).
2. Porphyry was known to the Greeks: Porphyry got it from Antiochus of Athens (late 2nd century) and it also appears in an interpolation in Valens.
3. Alcabitius was in existence by the time of Rhetorius (i.e. before 600)

… only things I consider are:
-does it seem to make sense?
-does it "taste good" to me (ie, does it "feel right" to me)
I'm not sure how the whole sign system can be said to "make sense" as a way of describing the diurnal motion of the planets. I am sure that if it makes sense, it must make sense to everyone. The idea that you adopt anything that "feels good" to you is to degrade astrology from a science to New Age fluffiness.
 

tsmall

Premium Member
The truth is I use both, for natal as well as horary. My understanding is that the ancient texts, when referring to the "places, signs, houses" were using the words interchangeably to mean "sign." The first quadrant systems seem to have arisen from the concept of angularity, as is described by Ptolemy as well as others.

The general idea was to calculate the ASC (or the gnomon of the ascendant as used by Valens) and divide the chart by sign for topics. What today we call houses began as a division to determine the stamina of the planet, i.e. how close to an angle, or pivot/stake that planet was, was it approaching/advancing toward an angle or falling away from one.

Many tradtional astrologers I know still use Porphyry (finding the angles and then dividing the quadrants into three houses each) or the slightly more sophisticated Alcabitius system. I personally prefer Placidus because I do more horary work than anything, and Placidus is genius in that each house is exactly two hours of day/night on the day the chart is cast. This brings the hour ruler into the chart in a way no other house system does.

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85029
 

DavidMcCann

Active member
My understanding is that the ancient texts, when referring to the "places, signs, houses" were using the words interchangeably to mean "sign." The first quadrant systems seem to have arisen from the concept of angularity, as is described by Ptolemy as well as others.
Very true. One also has to remember that the Whole Sign system enabled you to make the best of a bad job. Hardly anyone would know their birth time better than to the nearest hour, if that. The rising sign was relatively easy to find and would probably be right, while the exact Ascendant was difficult to find and probably wrong. It's also worth considering the work involved. If you've ever tried doing arithmetic with Greek numerals and a counting board, you quickly realise that you really don't want to do multiplication, let alone division, if you can possibly avoid it! Luckily you can find the rising sign with no more than addition.
 

david starling

Well-known member
I'm not sure how the whole sign system can be said to "make sense" as a way of describing the diurnal motion of the planets. I am sure that if it makes sense, it must make sense to everyone. The idea that you adopt anything that "feels good" to you is to degrade astrology from a science to New Age fluffiness.

It's not a matter of what "feels good". It's about clarity of Astrological-vision. As in the case of corrective lenses, it's not "one prescription fits all". Clearly, you have an intellectual bias on the matter of House methods. You've chosen the ones that feel good to you intellectually, and rejected whole signs, which do not. Just to be clear, the RESULTS of Whole-sign make sense to me, but apparently not to you. [IMO]Just use the House-system that gets RESULTS that make the most sense to you, without saying it should be the same one for everyone else for a personal, theoretical reason.
 
Last edited:

humblingstar

Well-known member
I've honestly wondered about this for a long time myself. I use Sidereal Placidus housesystem, because if I don't, my ascendant would be Cancer, which doesnt fit me at all. When I use Sidereal astrology, my Rising sign is Gemini.

My houses are also totally different from when I use Placidus, and when I use whole sign system. The differences are actually pretty overwhelming. I'm still not sure which one of these two are more correct tho.
 

tsmall

Premium Member
I've honestly wondered about this for a long time myself. I use Sidereal Placidus housesystem, because if I don't, my ascendant would be Cancer, which doesnt fit me at all. When I use Sidereal astrology, my Rising sign is Gemini.

My houses are also totally different from when I use Placidus, and when I use whole sign system. The differences are actually pretty overwhelming. I'm still not sure which one of these two are more correct tho.


Feel/felt/found. I understand how you feel, i felt the same way. In sidereal all my Libra placements move back into Virgo. But I found, once I stoped using pop astrology and started actually learning astrology, that the Libra placements, and their dominion over the house they rule, as well as what they actually represent in my chart, are more accurate.
 

AppLeo

Well-known member
I don't think the house systems are really all that different, honestly. It's not like a 6th house sun goes to a 10th house sun. It's just somewhere around the 5th, 6th, or 7th. Which are all houses that lead into each other. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd house are all very different but they all have to do with the self. So if you have a planet that's jumping places in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd just know that it's affecting the selfish part of your life and that's it. Don't stress about it.

My Saturn is in the 3rd house in placidus, 4th house in equal, and 5th house is vedic. Saturn in those houses all mean different things, but essentially, saturn is restricting the value to the self area of my life (I think the houses blend together). 3rd house is how you communicate, 4th is who you are at home, the 5th house is your expression. Anyone of them fit for me. My Saturn aspects my Sun, Moon, and Mercury which very much reflects having Saturn in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th. 3rd and Mercury are kind of the same thing. Moon and 4th are kind of the same thing. 5th and sun are kind of the same thing.

I find that the same themes in my chart come up no matter what astrology interpretation. The themes that are random are probably just not important (I've used chinese, sidereal, western, placidus, equal, whole sign...)
Yes they're all a little different, but who cares. Each astrology is a different piece of the puzzle and you gotta put them together to get the best info. Sidereal is like destiny, western is more psychology, chinese is just something else and the house systems – I'm not sure what each of them mean LOL... They're just different ways of figuring out you. A great thing about different house systems is that the planets that don't change houses even after trying out different systems definitely mean that they should be where they are. That's a piece to figuring out that one main theme of your chart. Like my neptune is 100% in the 1st house.

I think the key to different systems is to try and figure out what the chart is trying to tell you about who you are. And you can definitely find it when looking at all the different forms of astrology. The things that change or you can't understand are probably not that important because the things that are important probably don't change. Or maybe it's saying that your personality can be either of those things; it's just up to you to decide.

I think it's weird that people try to understand themselves and then try to fit or mold a chart to fit their personality when actually the chart is supposed to help them understand themselves.

Astrology is loose and fluid just like your personality.
 
Last edited:

airy

Active member
I've always had many doubts about which house system would be appropriate, since my chart does change in ways that seem very significant to me on a personal level. Planets moving houses, from Pluto in the 9th to the 10th and Neptune from the 12th to the 11th. I've found both placements truthful to a certain extent, (e.g. I can relate to Pluto being in the 9th as well as in the 10th, same goes for Neptune in 11th/12th). These two influences moving seem very important, since I am Pisces dominant and Neptune's position and meaning is necessary for the comprehension of my chart, at least in my eyes. Same goes for Pluto, shifting from the 9th to the 10th, it fits my ambitious nature, although this might just be because of Pluto being conjunct to my MC. I'd like it if there were a fixed standard for what system to use or at least an indicator.
 

david starling

Well-known member
I've always had many doubts about which house system would be appropriate, since my chart does change in ways that seem very significant to me on a personal level. Planets moving houses, from Pluto in the 9th to the 10th and Neptune from the 12th to the 11th. I've found both placements truthful to a certain extent, (e.g. I can relate to Pluto being in the 9th as well as in the 10th, same goes for Neptune in 11th/12th). These two influences moving seem very important, since I am Pisces dominant and Neptune's position and meaning is necessary for the comprehension of my chart, at least in my eyes. Same goes for Pluto, shifting from the 9th to the 10th, it fits my ambitious nature, although this might just be because of Pluto being conjunct to my MC. I'd like it if there were a fixed standard for what system to use or at least an indicator.

I'm thinking of them as descriptions of "alternative Life-paths". Maybe you're still undecided as to which path to take. :unsure:
 

airy

Active member
I'm thinking of them as descriptions of "alternative Life-paths". Maybe you're still undecided as to which path to take. :unsure:

In terms of life paths I'm very much stranded at the time. I looked into astrology to seek out strengths and weaknesses within myself that may have gone undetected. That's why I thought having a clear picture of what my chart would be like, as to planets in their houses, so that I can further understand myself. However, if there's anything I've learned of astrology to this date is that hardly anything is set in stone. Astrologers use what fits them best, but it's difficult for me, since I try to seek a method that is "true", even if that's not entirely possible because Astrology is different for everyone.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
In terms of life paths I'm very much stranded at the time.
I looked into astrology to seek out strengths and weaknesses within myself that may have gone undetected.
That's why I thought having a clear picture of what my chart would be like,
as to planets in their houses, so that I can further understand myself.
However, if there's anything I've learned of astrology to this date is that hardly anything is set in stone.
Astrologers use what fits them best,
but it's difficult for me,
since I try to seek a method that is "true",
even if that's not entirely possible because Astrology is different for everyone.
Fact is, regarding horoscopic astrology an accurate time of birth is essential
because
the time of birth determines the houses :smile:

i.e.
the time of birth determines the ascendant
step one is to ascertain the reliability of the time of birth
 

airy

Active member
Fact is, regarding horoscopic astrology an accurate time of birth is essential
because
the time of birth determines the houses :smile:

i.e.
the time of birth determines the ascendant
step one is to ascertain the reliability of the time of birth

My birth time is pretty accurate, it's on my birth certificate as 7:35 AM. I previously thought it was 7:00 AM although I was mistaken. I wish it was different though, I've got a pretty annoying stellium in the 12th that I would like to pretend didn't exist, lol.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
My birth time is pretty accurate, it's on my birth certificate as 7:35 AM.
I previously thought it was 7:00 AM although I was mistaken.
I wish it was different though,
I've got a pretty annoying stellium in the 12th that I would like to pretend didn't exist, lol.
Use an alternative house system :smile:
 
Top