Placidus x Whole signs

Placidus x Whole signs: What is your tool?

  • Placidus

    Votes: 7 46.7%
  • Whole signs

    Votes: 8 53.3%

  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .

Fragoso

Well-known member
Hello, everybody.
I wanted to know which system do you use for houses in astrology: placidus or whole signs, and why.

In my case i use placidus. My chart changes a lot if i use whole signs, and i fit better in whole signs (ASCENDANT CORRECT!)


The changes are the followings:

-Moon in 10th house (placidus) goes to 11th house (whole signs);
-Mercury in 4th house (placidus) goes to 5th house (whole signs);
-Mars in 12th house (placidus) goes to 1st house (whole signs);
-Jupiter in 3rd house (placidus) goes to 4th house (whole signs);
-Saturn in 7th house (placidus) goes to 8th house (whole signs);
-Uranus and Neptune in 6th (placidus) go to 7th house (whole signs).

The changes where i don't fit in are Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune, Mercury and Moon. :rightful:
Could make a list of pros and against, but i want to see your ideas.


Here. Three reasons, for example in pro for whole signs are the following:

«-You no longer have to deal with interception
-You don’t have the complication of planets on cusps
-Planets and signs are decidedly in one house»


So I ask you, is it better to ignore those problems using whole signs, than try to face them with placidus? Is it better to make blind eyes and forget those planets conjuncting cusps and try to make sure they are in a house (even if they don't fit in there) ?

Dying for listening your opinion,
Fragoso.
 
Last edited:

Moog

Well-known member
Points for and against an 11th house Moon


  • I’m not a joiner and never have been
I thought she meant a carpenter, thinking 'what's carpentry gotta do with the 11th house...'


I use whole sign because accumulated experience stored in my stomach brain said 'this one is best'. I can't really do better than that. It's a matter of intuition for me.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
So I ask you, is it better to ignore those problems using whole signs, than try to face them with placidus? Is it better to make blind or eyes and forget those planets conjuncting cusps and try to make sure they are in a house (even if they don't fit in there) ?

Dying for listening your opinion,
Fragoso.
IMO good idea to always read the small print Fragoso! Whole signs (when used as originally intended) actually incorporate cusps - as dr. farr has explained in depth amongst the posts on the thread tsmall gave a link to:smile:

QUOTE:
4. Robert Hand has also pointed out at that what has been translated from some ancient texts as the "cusp" of a Sign may in fact refer to the middle of the sign. If this is true, he goes on to assert, then the doctrines which hold that the "cusp" (misinterpreted as the beginning) of a Sign is most powerful would really have been intended to describe the middle of the Sign. This may be just one of a number of confusions arising from the mistranslation of Ptolemy regarding whole sign houses. If the Ascendant falls in the middle of a Zoidion, it is in the cusp of that Zoidion. That Zoidion, in its entirety, is the first house. But, if one misinterprets the passage in Ptolemy and takes the Ascendant as the boundary of the first house, it would be easy to also misinterpret the passage to mean that the Ascendant is the cusp (boundary) of the first house. Cusp might thus have come to be used as a term for describing the boundary of a house rather than for the middle of a Sign.
NCGR Lecture, Fort Mason Center, San Francisco, CA, Feb. 13, 1997

http://www.esoterism.ro/english/tropical-zodiac.php (the above quote is the last paragraph on the website page linked to) :smile:
 

Mark

Well-known member
I think the answer is that different techniques require different house systems. Vedic systems generally assume whole sign houses, as well as some Western systems. Placidus does have its advantages, though. One might think, though this is purely hypothetical, that whole sign houses would best suit sidereal measurements and Placidus would best suit tropical measurements.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
I would give Placidus "second place"-I used it with good results for several decades, until I discovered whole sign, which I have used for the past 14 years (exclusively) with what TO ME have been even better results.
However, the most important thing is to use what works best for YOU! If one is pretty much completely satisfied with what they use, then for goodness sake, stick to it!! Its the results we obtain that count; theories, doctrines, "science", are all secondary to our results.
 

tsmall

Premium Member
As a whole signer (is that a word? It ought to be..) I am pretty impressed that 4 out of 5 votes are for whole sign. I hope more vote. I would truly be interested to discover if whole sign is as oft used as it anectdotally seems to be here...
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
I had an earlier poll on this matter-however it was for all house systems, not just whole ve placidus; in that poll, quadrant houses dominated in preference, with whole sign at about (as I remember) 12%. I'll refresh that thread if I can find it.
 
Last edited:

Fragoso

Well-known member
However, the most important thing is to use what works best for YOU! If one is pretty much completely satisfied with what they use, then for goodness sake, stick to it!! Its the results we obtain that count; theories, doctrines, "science", are all secondary to our results.

I totally agree with you, dr farr. :innocent: Still, I don't reject at 100% whole signs.
Frag
 

Shanti

Well-known member
I tend to use 'Whole signs' and sidereal zodiac but watch closely for planets at the angles, at ASC,DC,MC,IC as powerful in the charts.

Also transits to angles are watched carefully.

I used koch, Placidus for many years and a short period of Equal houses too.
Living in high latitude it's kind of a relief to have switched to Whole sign.

Now I use a combo of vedic techniqes with western application of outer planets in aspects, transits and progs.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
I tend to use 'Whole signs' and sidereal zodiac but watch closely for planets at the angles, at ASC,DC,MC,IC as powerful in the charts.

Also transits to angles are watched carefully.

I used koch, Placidus for many years and a short period of Equal houses too.
Living in high latitude it's kind of a relief to have switched to Whole sign.

Now I use a combo of vedic techniqes with western application of outer planets in aspects, transits and progs.


Sounds like a good eclectic approach:smile:!
 

Kaiousei no Senshi

Premium Member
I typically use Regio houses actually. Recently several of my colleages have been attempting to get me to use whole sign houses, but I really just can't get into it. Planet relocation aside, I find it difficult to reconcile whole sign houses with the symbolism of the axis points in the houses. Like, I'll never forgive whole sign houses for disassociating the First house cusp from the Ascendant. It just comes off as alien and sloppy.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
Understanding the original meaning of the word cusp as a "point" (rather than as a "border"), whole sign makes the ascending degree the "cusp" (sensitive point) of the first house, and then projects this point as the "cusp" (sensitive point) for each other house, with the MC/IC as additional "cusps" (sensitive points) which can vary as to which house they actually fall in (dependant upon latitude)
So aspects to "cusps" (sensitive points) exist in whole sign-actually in whole sign we have 2 potential considerations for every house/sign relative to degree aspects: one, aspects to the "cusp" (sensitive point of the house) and also, aspects to the beginning (0 degree) or "border" of the house/sign as well.

However, I am not trying here to justify or advocate whole sign, just pointing out facts connected with this ancient domification format...
 

Kaiousei no Senshi

Premium Member
Understanding the original meaning of the word cusp as a "point" (rather than as a "border"), whole sign makes the ascending degree the "cusp" (sensitive point) of the first house, and then projects this point as the "cusp" (sensitive point) for each other house,

Dr. Farr, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that method of house division you're discussing (where the Ascendant degree [for example] is 13° Leo, the second house cusp would be 13° Virgo, third house is 13° Libra, etc), is called Equal House.
 

Choe

Well-known member
I typically use Regio houses actually. Recently several of my colleages have been attempting to get me to use whole sign houses, but I really just can't get into it. Planet relocation aside, I find it difficult to reconcile whole sign houses with the symbolism of the axis points in the houses. Like, I'll never forgive whole sign houses for disassociating the First house cusp from the Ascendant. It just comes off as alien and sloppy.

I use Placidus, but I like Koch too.
Regiomontanus is good,but it's very similar to Placidus,so...
Equal is on 3rd Place on my list.

Whole signs is on NO place. It's the most rubbish/silly system ever.

The reason is completely objective(if I use whole,my Venus is better placed) the reasons are these: I would rather take the truth with difficulties than the easier way. wholes seem easier but also fake.
«-You no longer have to deal with interception
-You don’t have the complication of planets on cusps
-Planets and signs are decidedly in one house»


So I ask you, is it better to ignore those problems using whole signs, than try to face them with placidus? Is it better to make blind eyes and forget those planets conjuncting cusps and try to make sure they are in a house (even if they don't fit in there) ?
 
Last edited:

sequestra

Well-known member
My chart really fits in both systems (not at all in equal, but that's another matter); so yes, I'm rather torn between the two.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
No sir, it is whole sign: let me explain:
-in my post I am using the word "cusp" in its original meaning of "point"
-this in distinction to the later use of the term "cusp" to mean "border"

Now, in Equal House the ascending degree is used as the BORDER of the first house (and all houses are exactly 30 degrees in size); then the BORDER of the 2nd house is exactly 30 degrees away from the ascending degree, and so on around the circle of signs. The later use of the word "cusp" AS A BORDER, was applied to this point for each house.

In whole sign, the ascending degree WHEREVER IT FALLS IN THE SIGN, is the "point" or (original meaning of the term) "cusp" of the house, the house BORDER being (in all cases) the 0 degree of the given sign. For each subsequent house/sign, the BORDER of each sign always remains @ 0 degree (ie, the houses always START at 0 degrees of the respective sign), but the (original meaning of the term) "cusp" for each subsequent house/sign is exactly that (the same degree) as the ascending degree (each house/sign "cusp"/sensitive point being the projection of the ascending degree into each subsequent house/sign)

Quadrant house formats are similar to Equal house in that they use the ascending/descendant degree as the START (border) of the 1st and 7th houses, and the MC/DC degree as the START (border) of the 10th and 4th houses, and make use of the later meaning of the word "cusp" as "BORDER" (rather than as a point), the houses being often of unequal size (according to the formulation of the house format system being used)
 
Last edited:
Top