Confusion concerning house system due to Location

The rust on dust said:

Forgot the chart :s

Click to expand...

The rust on dust said:

So, for me personally in Holland it would not matter which house system I would use then.

Has it ever occured that a planet can be influenced by 2 houses when strictly placed in 1 house not close to the cusp of another?

Click to expand...

In ancient times astrologers used WHOLE SIGN houses for TOPICS
and
Quadrant system to indicate PLANETARY STRENGTH

for example
any planet ANGULAR when using for example PLACIDUS as well as WHOLE SIGN
is considered stronger than any planet that is angular when using ONLY PLACIDUS or ONLY WHOLE SIGN

ALSO
Keep in mind
that the way WHOLE SIGN house system was used in ancient times
DIFFERS
from the way many use WHOLE SIGN today


dr. farr has studied astrology for more than fifty years
but is currently unwell so has not posted for some time
however he did post the following comment in the past

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...

The rust on dust said:

Thank you for that paste Jupiter, very informative ^^

Click to expand...

That's ok The rust on dust

WHOLE SIGN HOUSES just need to be correctly employed


QUOTE

'...In no other area of astrology is there so much mess and confusion
than in the area of the so-called "houses".
There are at least twenty or thirty different house systems
or means of dividing the so-called "birthchart" into twelve segments of life activity.
In astrology, houses, mansions, or domains, represent general areas of life activity
and are the grounding areas or arenas of expression for planets.

Originally, the words "houses" and "signs" were interchangeable
or meant the same thing.
A planet in Aries was also a planet in the house of Aries, so that in effect.
there were no real houses as we know them today....'



'….Artificial divisions
now known as houses
were attempts by early Greeks and Hindus to measure strength "points" in the horoscope,
which during 7th and 8th centuries AD
were construed or confused
as means of dividing the birth chart.
The ascendant and midheaven degrees and their opposites, for example,
were definite power points or areas of intense focus,
but not necessarily the beginnings of a house or quadrant.

In fact, there is no real basis for the astrological houses at all.
They derive from a misunderstanding of the true nature of the Ascendant and Midheaven factors in astrology,
Ascendant representing Earth/terrestial sphere, and Midheaven representing Sky/Heaven /celestial sphere....'



'...If any house system should be used at all, it should be the Whole Sign House system,
where the ascendant sign becomes the whole first house and the others follow.
Ascendant point can then fall anywhere in the first house and the midheaven point anywhere in the upper half of the chart. T
he Whole Sign House system was used by the ancient Greeks and the Hindus(who still use it today).
It is the oldest and simplest house system in existence,
and immediately eliminates the awful mess astrologers have made on the issue over the last 1300 years or so....'

JUPITERASC said:

In fact, there is no real basis for the astrological houses at all.
They derive from a misunderstanding of the true nature of the Ascendant and Midheaven factors in astrology,
Ascendant representing Earth/terrestial sphere, and Midheaven representing Sky/Heaven /celestial sphere....'

Click to expand...

Zarathu said:

You can get thoroughly bogged down in this stuff. The real question is whether this stuff helps you provide appropriate interpretations of someone's blueprint of their life: their horoscope.

Unless you want to get into this for some reason, IMO, it will prevent you from assisting potential clients with their lives. Just choose a house system and move on.

Click to expand...

There are fourteen different house systems on offer at astro.com EXTENDED CHART SELECTION PAGE

Including WHOLE SIGN