What house system do you use and why?

waybread

Well-known member
i like whole sign house system
placidus just suks, no wonder i didn't really take the houses seriously in the past, i was using the wrong system!

Professional astrologer (and occasional member on this forum) Alice Portman has done a lot of research on horoscopes and she feels that some people respond best to one house system, other people to another.

This isn't entirely orthodox in "the best house system" debate, but it makes sense to me.
 

Cruiser1

Well-known member
What is the difference in interpretation between using one house system in preference to another, other than a possible change of planet, sign or house?
No difference, usually! ;) Outside of different approaches to astrology (like Vedic vs. Western) houses generally have the exact same interpretation, which means changing the house system doesn't change the interpretation (outside of planets changing house, of course). Anyway, there are two primary reasons why one tends to consider a house system to be "good":

(1) Experience: One may believe a system is good based on what other presumably reliable sources have said, or on their own personal experience. This can be subject to error, for example believing that something is true just because others think it's true. (Consider how the "best minds" believed the world was flat for a long time, and that the Sun orbited the Earth, until it took revolutionary thinkers to suggest otherwise.) Similarly, one may have had interpretation results that seem right for them, but they're based on a small sample size, so others who have worked with a different (also small) set of charts may have been drawn to a different system. Until detailed statistically relevant studies similar to Gauquelin's "Mars Effect" are conducted, it will be hard to ever "prove" that one house system is more correct (assuming that "proving" astrology is even something that should be done). :tongue:

(2) Logic: One may believe a system is good or sounds right based on a definition or description of the system, or what looks right based on visual placement of the house cusps. For example, consider Sinusoidal Houses for a system that has a simple reasoned definition, and also makes a case for being the "best looking" house system! ;) Logic can be subject to error too, because a system may seem right on paper but not actually work or be useful in practice.
E.G. WHY is Campanus more reliable than any other?

Every system has its own arguments, of course. ;) For example, Campanus being the "best" system is based on the following logic or beliefs:

(1) Houses are similar to signs, in that they're both 12 divisions of the sky. Since signs are always equal sized slices, houses should be too. House division should therefore be an Equal system (at least when viewed in 3D).

(2) Houses are inherently tied to the local horizon. That's why the first house is always near the Eastern horizon, in the area just below it. Combined with point #1, that suggests the best model for houses is 12 equal sized wedges placed over the local horizon. For example, it's important that a planet above the horizon will always be in houses 7-12, and a planet below the horizon will always be in houses 1-6.

The above describes the 3D model of Campanus, which is the only way to make the above conditions true. Campanus also has the "others use it too" reasoning, since it was the preferred system of Dane Rudhyar, the father of modern evolutionary astrology. As astrologer Richard Brown wrote:

"My personal opinion is that Dane Rudhyar did more than any single other modern astrologer to drag astrology out of the cesspool of the Middle Ages fatalism and negativity to allow astrology to grow into the modern age. It was a mammoth and life-long task, which is not yet complete."
 

Frisiangal

Well-known member
^^^^

Cruiser1,
Thank you for taking the time to explain.

Yet another personal question in thought found to be lacking in substantial reasoning.:smile:
 

Cruiser1

Well-known member
thanks for the info on the sun taking its own sweet time to cross a given degree point. With the outer planets, it would take even longer.
Actually, it turns out that the Sun is the slowest body to enter a new sign, because it's so much wider than any planet. Outer planets indeed orbit more slowly, however their visible diameters are much smaller. Here's about how long it takes each planet's disk to enter a new sign or cross any given point in space:

  • Sun: 12 hr
  • Moon: 1 hr
  • Mars: 5 minutes
  • Jupiter: 3 hr
  • Saturn: 4 hr
  • Uranus: 2.5 hr
  • Neptune: 2.5 hr
  • Pluto: 8 minutes
  • Chiron: 1 minute
These numbers were estimated using Astrolog's telescope chart, by watching planets animate past a given zodiac position degree. Outer planets may be slightly faster or slower depending on where Earth is in its orbit in relation to them (so use heliocentric to get a good average figure).
 

Osamenor

Staff member
Actually, it turns out that the Sun is the slowest body to enter a new sign, because it's so much wider than any planet. Outer planets indeed orbit more slowly, however their visible diameters are much smaller. Here's about how long it takes each planet's disk to enter a new sign or cross any given point in space:

The moon and the sun have the same visible diameter, as seen from Earth. But the moon moves much faster. If they moved through the zodiac at the same speed, the moon would take as long as the sun to change signs.

So the sun isn't the widest, it's tied for that honor. It's just the slower of the two.
 

Cruiser1

Well-known member
The moon and the sun have the same visible diameter, as seen from Earth. But the moon moves much faster.
You are, of course, absolutely correct here. :) By "widest" I mean that the Sun has the largest actual diameter in kilometers, and that component contributes more to the time required for the body's disk to pass a point in space, than the also important effect of outer planets orbiting slower.

What may not be so obvious is which of these two effects is stronger. A larger planet takes longer time to pass a point. A farther away planet orbits slower and also takes longer time to pass a point. For example, suppose all planets were the same actual size. Will the smaller apparent size of a farther away planet (which means shorter time to pass a point) override the fact that farther away planets move slower (which means longer time to pass a point)?

The answer is that being farther away is a greater factor, due to Kepler's Third Law of planetary motion, in which the square of the orbital period is proportional to the cube of the distance. That means doubling the distance will more than double the orbital period, which means a farther away object of equal actual size will take longer to pass a point.
 

waybread

Well-known member
Cruiser, thanks for bringing some actual *astronomy* into the discussion.

So how would you answer a common question: people born right when the sun changes sign? Would you tell them they're one or the other or both?
 

Cruiser1

Well-known member
Cruiser, thanks for bringing some actual *astronomy* into the discussion. So how would you answer a common question: people born right when the sun changes sign? Would you tell them they're one or the other or both?
I'd say they're a bit of both. :) How much of both depends on exactly how close the birthtime is to the exact moment of the center point of the Sun crossing into the next sign.

For example, with the Sun taking 12 hours to cross a point in space, that means there's 6 hours from when the front edge of the Sun first crosses into a new sign, to when the center point of the Sun also crosses over. If one's born 3 hours before the center point, then there's still over 4 times as much of the Sun's disk in the old sign as has entered the new sign. That means one's a "cusp" and is influenced somewhat by the new sign, but still has the vast majority of energy coming from the old sign.

Again this is just an astrological practice that assumes "cusps" are a thing, and that the possibility of being influenced by two different signs at once is reality, and also that it's based on the positioning of the physical disk of the body in question. Whether that's astrological "truth" or not would be hard to prove, but it makes the most sense to me. ;)
 

waybread

Well-known member
This is helpful, Cruiser1, thanks.

I sometimes consider that in sidereal astrology, one's planetary signs would normally be completely different. I am also intrigued by the possibility of a constellation-based astrology.

Apparently the Babylonian astrologers invented signs ca. 500 BCE to simplify the task of predicting eclipses in their base-60 arithmetic system.
 

manas

Member
After talking to Dirius in the past, he mentioned that he uses the whole sign house system. Liking his perspective on things in general, I decided to give it a real chance in my own chart.

From my own analysis, I find it to be much more accurate. As one example, I used to think that my Sun always belonged in the 7th house, but in the whole sign house system it falls in the 8th house. The 8th house has a lot to do with psychology, occult, and hiding yourself away, and that sounds so much more right for me. The Mars and Venus in the whole sign house system, I've been mistakenly associating that with my 7th house placidus Sun.

I also like the whole sign house system because the house rulers or lords will always rule over a house, and you don't have to deal with the nonsense of interceptions.

Overall, I think houses can be overcomplicated. When in doubt, sometimes I think it's best to just reduce things to the quadrants.

Planets in quadrant one (1st, 2nd, 3rd house) have a lot to do with a person's identity.
Planets in quadrant two (4th, 5th, 6th) have a lot to do with expression
Planets in quadrant three (7th, 8th 9th) have to do with relating to others
Planets in quadrant four (10th, 11th 12th) have to do with the public

Thoughts?


Many of my favorite astrologers use whole sign houses and they're predictions are very often accurate.
However, using whole sign houses puts my sun and moon from my first house to my second, creating a second house libra stellium which does not feel right for me AT ALL.
My life does not revolve around money or materialist possessions in any way so these placements don't make any sense I feel.
I do on the other hand very much resonate with my libra placements being a big part of myself, I act, feel and think like a libra so I feel that other systems that put my sun and moon, like equal houses and even placidus, and maybe even my mercury with campanus in my first house make a lot more sense for me.
Additionally my other planets make more sense in non whole sign house systems, so as much as I would want the simple and logical whole sign houses to work for me, I decide not to use it.
I attached my chart if you're curious
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2020-12-23 234244.jpg
    Screenshot 2020-12-23 234244.jpg
    51.9 KB · Views: 25

Osamenor

Staff member
However, using whole sign houses puts my sun and moon from my first house to my second, creating a second house libra stellium which does not feel right for me AT ALL.
My life does not revolve around money or materialist possessions in any way so these placements don't make any sense I feel.

The meaning of second house is broader than just money and material possessions. Those things are indicated by the second house, but so are personal values. So is body and body image. So is self esteem.

Some signs and placements in the second house indicate non-materialistic values. Libra values creating beauty and harmony. That may not have anything to do with money or materialist possessions. That may even be a case of having a very non-materialistic orientation. Even in Placidus, your second house cusp is in Libra and you have two Libra planets there. Something about the second house is highlighted for you, even if you count your sun and moon in the first.

You also have your south node with your sun and moon, in that first house Placidus/second house whole sign portion of Libra. The south node is the spiritual side of the coin. It gives a non-materialistic, spiritual orientation to whatever it's near. The north node would be the material side.

One more ace to turn over: when the sun and moon are at one of the nodes, that's when a solar eclipse happens. Having the south node with your sun and moon, and the sun and moon being within four degrees of each other, means a solar eclipse happened within hours of your birth, and it was a south node eclipse. South node eclipses have a diminishing effect. Something goes away. Something is broken. In a natal chart for an eclipse born person, the house of the south node will be less manifest, in a material sense, and probably more spiritual.
 

manas

Member
Wow that's actually quite interesting, I didn't know the south node could have an opposite effect where the features of a house are diminished with many placements (If I understood that correctly). I would agree that although material possessions were never really a significant part of my life, they have diminished and spirituality has become a lot more present.
I also do see your point that the second house isn't only money and possessions.

I'm still not fully convinced though because all the other features of the second house still aren't very significant but that could very well change in the future considering my second house cusp and planets there. Also I feel my other planets make more sense in my equal houses rather than my whole sign houses.

I do feel whole sign houses could be accurate, my planets placements in them don't really feel wrong they're just not as spot on I would say.
I will continue to use both house systems to compare and make my mind up as my life plays out and see which house system fits better.
Thank you
 

Osamenor

Staff member
Personally, I use Placidus primarily but also consider whole sign. When a planet is in one house Placidus and another house whole sign, I look at where the house meanings overlap.

First and second house both deal with self. First house is me. If Sun, Moon, or a concentration of planets is in the first house, there's a strong need for what you have or do to be by and for yourself.

Maybe you need to live alone (a friend of mine with a packed first house has such a strong need to live alone that whenever she's tried to live with others, it went wrong in a spectacular and unusual way). If you live with others, you probably need to at least have significant space of your own. Maybe you choose a line of work that keeps you working on your own. Maybe when you set out to learn something, you prefer self study to group study. Maybe all of your hobbies are solitary pursuits. Things like that.

Second house is what you value and what you have. Your own resources. How you use those resources. How you acquire them. How you make decisions about them. Money is one resource, but one among many. Second house can also be about how you feel about the first house--your self. Body image issues relate to the second house, for example.
 

Cruiser1

Well-known member
I sometimes consider that in sidereal astrology, one's planetary signs would normally be completely different. I am also intrigued by the possibility of a constellation-based astrology.
Indeed, the different house systems are different ways to divide the local horizon. However, the signs can be divided in different ways too, such as the tropical zodiac, and the sidereal zodiac (which is really many different sidereal zodiacs, with the different options for ayanamsa or 0Aries start point).

There are also ways to have irregularly sized "signs", which are generally aligned with the constellations. For example, there are 88 modern astronomical constellations whose location and irregular boundaries were decided upon in 1928 by the International Astronomical Union (IAU). However, those boundaries are relatively arbitrary, and therefore should have little to do with real spiritual energies. Also, there are other options for constellation divisions such as Ptolemy's classic list of 48.

See below for comparison and overlay of the signs with the constellations in Astrolog, in which the 12 tropical astrology signs of the zodiac are in purple, and the 88 astronomy constellations are in blue. Remember that real constellations are 2D shapes, and planets that don't follow the ecliptic may pass through additional constellations. For example, notice the Moon is in the sign Aries but the constellation Cetus (the Sea Monster).

sphere2.gif
 

leomoon

Well-known member
Actually, my earlier post said I use as default, the Placidius tropical chart, and experimentally, use the Sidereal (Raman) whole houses chart.


I suppose the reason as to "why" is because Edgar Cayce the prophet said both matter. One for the spiritual planes one for the material lives. I found my Sidereal chart fits me quite well actually.



Instead of 21Cancer Rising, it's Gemini (and I write a LOT) from diaries, to books, to thoughts, blog, etc.


The Moon stays in both in the sign of Leo.


The Sun moves to Sagittarius instead of Capricorn. I am a rather giving person and have a good sense of humor. But I certainly have my Capricorn days too which are more solitary and darker. Both the Sun, Mars & Mercury all move into Sagittarius, rather then tropical Capricorn. :sideways:


Happy Holidays to all who celebrate them. :kissing:
An author/astrologer did a writeup on this:


http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/aapersian%20astrology5.htm#:~:text=According%20to%20Cayce%2C%20this%20zodiac%20is%20the%20%E2%80%9CPersian%E2%80%9D,quite%20different%20than%20the%20standard%20tropical%20sign%20definitions.




However, during Cayce’s lifetime the old Zeta Piscium zodiac was still popular in India and elsewhere as nothing better had been devised. At the time Cayce lived, the value of this zodiac was in the vicinity of 10 degrees displaced from the tropical zodiac. However, the primary users of this zodiac, astrologers in India, had already adjusted the difference to between 8 and 9 degrees. This may explain the apparent differences in statements of the Readings below. These statements certainly cannot be said to be precise!
from Cayce:

“For instance, the astrological influences are not in the form or manner as has been so oft and is so oft judged by the purely astrological aspects from records. For the shifting, the changes that have been wrought in the zodiac as well as the signs and positions of this material sphere in relationship to the whole have been misjudged.” (1770-2)
“....the variations in time have been corrected by the Persians and not by the Egyptians. The Egyptian calculations are thirty degrees off. “(2011-3)
“For most astrologers are nearly thirty degrees off in their reckoning in the present.” (3376-2)
 
Last edited:

wan

Well-known member
I started out using the Placidus system, because that is what astrolabe used (I use astrolabe extensively). Then, I started taking notice of whole sign system. I think it makes sense, too, and I have actually used both house systems to look at my own chart. I dont really find a whole lot of differences between them, mostly because most of the important planets reside within the same houses in both systems.

If you ask me what I really like, I will say placidus. However this is by no means "proof" that this house system is superior or more accurate. It's just a personal preference.
 

waybread

Well-known member
Manas, I just want to point out that you have very little of the earth element in your chart. So I wouldn't expect you to be oriented towards material things such as money and belongings.

Libra is an air sign, so "what you value" would be more like ideas or principles. As a sign, Libra is oriented towards fairness and justice.
 
Top