Using whole sign and quadrant together makes natural sense to me. Whole sign would be based on the all-important ASC ? suitable for a chart native and the world he or she creates from his or her desires and motives. To me it has the somewhat loose feel of potential (just as a person could perhaps be thought of as an undefined field of potential). Quadrant houses lock a chart tightly into the 'Cross of Matter'. There is a greater feeling of a closed structure when the chart is tightly built around the ASC and MC. That works well for horary and its need to align the querent tightly into the the interconnected elements of the world.

However ... Have I just demonstrated the point that whole sign houses couldn't be used for mundane work? Oh well.

I was hoping it was more clear, but let?s see what other people think

Hmm...

Yuzuru, I like you.

Out of kindness I won't comment.

mmmm Time for a good nights sleep I think. It will hopefully all look better in the morning.........

Mark

Maybe just best to stick with quadrant houses are good at showing planetary strength. Whole signs add to the narrative.

Or do I get funny looks now, too?

I have never had a chart that my software refused to calculate and I must say that some of my clients live very far north in Finland!

The problems (when using the ecliptic) will only occur only when at and beyond the polar circles 66.5 North (and South, but out of convenience I will stick to the north in this thread). This is ca. 100km north of the northernmost part of the Gulf of Bothnia.

While the day is still a bit over 4 hours at 63?, at 66? the day lasts 1h45m. In every example from now I use 23.44? (23?26.4') as the inclination of the ecliptic giving a polar circle at 66.56? (66?33.6'). The inclination slightly changes throughout the years/centuries but can be considered fixed now. At 66.5 (this is allmost 7km from the polar circle) the day lasts 35 minutes. 0?0'0.18" south of the polar circle this is 5.5 metres south of the polar circle the day lasts 1 minute. In this minute 0?Capricorn to 0? Cancer will rise. This is a 180? part of the ecliptic that rises. These are the fast rising signs. The slow rising signs from 0?Cancer to 0?Capricorn rise in a total of 23h59m or with an average of more or less of 4 hours per sign. A person born 5.5 metres north of the polar circle will have an almost similar period of fast : slow rising signs ratio but now something strange occurred. Since over here 0? Cancer never rises or sets and is always above the horizon and 0? Capricorn ditto but is always below the horizon, the first point that will rise (short before 18:00 Sidereal Time) is 29?53.1' Gemini and subsequently 0? Aries rises till 0?6.9' Capricorn rises all in very short time (less than a minute). At that first moment 29?53.1' Gemini coincides with the north meridian and therefore with the IC. That second moment (0?6.9' Capricorn) coincides with south meridian/MC. This means that here the signs rise at reveresd order. Two babies born at the same moment lying 11 metres apart as in the above discribed situation will have different risings (and therefore different (eclitptic based) primary directions.

Undeniably, the distances between midheaven and ascendant/descendant are sometimes extreme; but the astrology does seem to work.

Yes it can occur that MC and Asc (almost) coincide. The houses will be either extremely 'squeezed' or stretched'

The one problem I have come across is determining to which house a planet belongs (the five-degree rule is no good when a house is just ten degrees wide!).

In my opinion when using the five degree rule, it should be applied according to the house system of choice. Equal ecliptical methods will require 5? along the ecliptic. In an unequal system like Porphyry this division is applied. E.g. if the distance from MC to Asc is 72? and from Asc. to MC 108? then the Porphyry houses in X-XII are 24? each and I-III 6? each. 5? is 1/6th of a house of 30?. Applied to the 'Porphyry' houses this would mean that in the 24? size houses 1/6th would be 4? and in the 36? size houses 6?. In a more extreme situation like Porphyry houses X-XII of 1? each and I-III 59? each will give for the 5 degree rule sizes of 0?10' and 9?50' respectively. For other house/quadrant systems apply the coinciding formulae.

This all can give situations of Cusps X to I lying all in Sagittarius with the signs Capricorn to Gemini lying all in house I only to have cusp IV to VII in end of Gemini.

Actually, New Zealand is not really a high latitude country in terms of the southern hemisphere. I believe its southernmost point is only down ( or is it up?) to 45S. There are lots of European cities with much higher latitude in the northern hemisphere. In terms of populated areas I believe its only at the southern tip of Chile /Argentina or the Falkland Islands that the southern latitude just exceeds 50S. The problem is therefore overwhelmingly a northern hemisphere one in practical terms of charts you are likely to encounter.

There is a case of a person, Emilio Palma, born on Antarctica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilio_Palma but this occurred at ca. 63?South. Perhaps when in a far future Antarctica will be the only liveable place on Earth where people can live due to global warming , more births will be recorded over there.

Quote:
So, does this mean tht you use Porphyry and Alcabitius , MarkC?


As for what I do I have to state I am struggling with this problem myself too. I am not suggesting I have the answer. Like every other controversial issue in astrology its something every astrologer needs to find an answer for themself that personally satisfies them. I gave up using Placidus or Regiomontanus myself some time ago largely due to this issue. Its also due to an increasing interest in the Hellenistic roots of astrology. I have therefore been using the whole sign house system since then for natal charts and I have to state I am very happy with it. It has changed the house rulers of charts in ways that I find more accurately reflects my life and those of others I have examined. I am also free of the muddle of intercepted houses.

It's indeed very difficult to decide. Every system has its advantage and its disadvantates. Equal Asc houses have the great advantage of no intercepted houses. In Part V (i) 'Global Horoscopes' ( http://www.skyscript.co.uk/polar5.html ) Michael Wackford discusses several ways how one can view the house systems. If the Ascendant is to be viewed always as a rising point, then it will be always situated at the eastern part of the horizon. In this case MC might be under the horizon and the signs rising in reversed order. If the Ascendant is seen as a point where before it the points are above the horizon and after it below then the Ascendant would be in the western part of the horizon with MC in the north. For quadrant systems like Campanus and Regiomontanus more problems rise like the situation that the ecliptic at the northern part of the horizon will be defined as the MC cusp. Their houses will appear clockwise.

For me its not just an astronomical question as it seems to be for Eddy but also one involving respecting the traditions of astrology and retaining a practical astrological perspective too.

Although I may present several problems as a pure astronomical issue, I do experience them in a 'philosophical' way. The underlying issue is that I view the sphere and the circle as the most perfect geometrical forms to be related to human issues. Perhaps this is a Platonic view. Projected on reference systems I would like to see these views reflected in the house systems (and sign systems). Therefore I prefer a coordinate system in the traditional sense with a base plane divided in equal parts. I view the geometry in a philosophical way.

It remains difficult to reconcile the polar issues with traditional astrology. If the houses VII - XII should be always above the horizon this will collide with the idea of the ascending sign/point situated in the east.

Quote:
I therefore would prefer house systems based upon the MC/meridian. Those are: Equal-MC, Meridian, Morinus and (if it doesn't exist already) one can imagine an equal system based upon the Equatorial Ascendant. Of which the first two would be my most preferred ones.


I take it this is a purely theoretical position on your part? I thought you didn't use houses?

Usually I don?t use houses, but in the cases I want to study traditional house concepts I would have to choose a system. In my personal case I find the 2nd house very convincing. In that case I probably would choose the Equal MC system. But it?s not only about house systems but rather about reference systems. If I were to use for example Regiomontanus I would use the so called mundane positioning of planets according to this method. Since I believe the ecliptic to be one of the most perfect reference planes I try to base the house systems on this plane. I therefore would come to either Equal Asc or Equal MC (or the whole sign variants of these). Since the ecliptic based Ascendant moves a bit oddly through the signs and even may not reach several points on the ecliptic I prefer the MC based positions.

I find Michael Wackford's comments on these systems useful:

Quote:
The Meridian system and the method devised by Morinus both work very well near the Poles, if only because neither uses true geographic latitude. These methods locate all horoscopes at the Equator, regardless of where an event occurs, so their 1st house cusps are rarely marked by the Ascendant. Moreover, since neither division uses the true local horizon, planets and degrees of the Zodiac actually above that horizon often appear below the horizontal axis of the chart-wheel and vice versa.[4] Neither system represents the local skies and both ignore the rising degree


This does solve the latitude problem but at a cost I think very few astrologers would be willing to pay. The ascendant is a fundamental aspect of horoscopic astrology and systems that dispense with it seem nothing more than quaint mathematical constructs to me that ignore the fundamental roots of astrology.

Note that I don?t intend to leave the ascendant as an important point. However I think that a house system can be used without Ascendant as essential part of the system.

If for instance we view the Meridian system, then at first sight it seems only to represent the positions at the Earth?s equator. I however believe that although the basis lies in the Right Ascension (which makes it equal for the whole Earth) the declination part gives an extra positioning which is different for every latitude on Earth. At the latitude of 49? (Paris) the Sun's declination (at Midsummer) of 23.44? will give a diurnal arc of 240?. Perhaps, in this view a planet can be considered to be 60? passed the eastern horizon and 180? before the western horizon. The Sun or a planet (though) on the horizon could be seen as being situated in house X or house III. Rising and setting times are taken into account but don't take part as integrated in the reference system. The extra info however 'reveals' that we deal with a location on Earth that is not on the Equator.

I think one problem may be an over-emphasis on the zodiac/ecliptic as the reference system (with degrees of longitude as the 'degrees of the chart'). The horizon and meridian are always at right angles, so from that point of view there is nothing unequal about quadrant houses -- on the contrary, whole-sign houses then become strangely lopsided!

From both a theoretical and a practical point of view, I view the ecliptic as one of the most perfect planes. Quadrant houses can indeed be viewed as equal in which whole signs/equal houses would appear as ?distorted?, it?s just a reference point of view (litterally). However if one would observe a mundane viewed transit through the houses then in some cases a Jupiter transit for example through the X, XI, XII quadrant could pass in only one month or so while the passage through the VII, VIII, IX quadrant takes 5 to 6 years. Although the projection of planets (which orbit usually are inclined in relation to the ecliptic) on the ecliptic als give small deviations, I consider these mundane transits a bit odd for practical use.

I am completely perplexed as to why people want to use two systems of houses simultaneously though.

If a different house system can be used combined with a proportional arc division method (I believe this was discussed in a thread on Primary Directions in March), then why couldn?t two reference systems be used simultaneously. I?m still going back and forth between equatorial and ecliptical. However I attempt to use the ecliptical coordinates in almost every case.

Wackford concludes:

Quote:
Placidus is not, as is repeated ad nauseum, the only quadrant method that cannot be applied above latitudes 66?. On the contrary, it is the only one that can be used in the Polar Regions without sacrificing astronomical and/or astrological integrity.

In Part V (i) 'Global Horoscopes' ( http://www.skyscript.co.uk/polar5.html ) Michael Wackford also describes a method in which the application of the same method to Regiomontanus is possible.

Quote:
Probably easier for you to just move down to England.


What all 5 million of us?

I better confess most astrologers in Scotland are still happily working with Placidus houses with a few Equal house dissenters for natal.

Placidus or any other house system won?t give any problems apart from squeezed and stretched houses. Even at Muckle Flugga there will be no problems . Polar problems only occur at latitudes further north than 66.5?, unless one uses the declinations of planets and not of their projections on the ecliptic.

The real difficulties with the ecliptic occur beyond 66.5 and in the periods with the signs rising in reversed order as illustrated in the table I linked to. In those cases several cusps may be totally absent.

Hi Eddy,
I appreciate the time you have put in on this.

Placidus or any other house system won?t give any problems apart from squeezed and stretched houses.

That matter of very ?stretched and squeezed houses?? as you call it is precisely why I set up this thread. Not the more arcane issue of erecting charts at the Poles. Its the practical astrological issue of real natal or horary charts from latitudes below 65N that concerns me most. Philosophically, I think the time based nature of Placidus makes it the most attractive quadrant system.

Maybe my resistance to accept Placidus or Regiomontanus at my latitude stems partly from an innate aversion to house systems that give my natal chart enormous 6th and 12 houses! I cant help wondering if a lot of astrologers end up rejecting/choosing systems for such subjective criteria.

Equally, I suspect most astrologers just adopt the system they were taught in or work with the system within the astrological approach they gravitate to. Thus most psychological astrologers tend to use Placidus or Koch houses. Those into very accurately timing events often support Topocentric houses. Those following the medieval approach incline to Alcabitius houses while those following a 17th century approach are more likely to use Regiomontanus. Similarly, the revival of Hellenistic astrology has led to more interest in whole sign houses.

I am not claiming to be immune from such influences. Still I feel its time to take a step back from all these external influences and make up my own mind. If only I could?..

I am simply not flexible enough to adopt Bernadette Brady?s suggestion of picking a house system for each occasion rather like selecting different tools from the garden shed for different tasks.

Mark

I am simply not flexible enough to adopt Bernadette Brady?s suggestion of picking a house system for each occasion rather like selecting different tools from the garden shed for different tasks.

When you think of it ... Let's all seriously give it a try now ..... Why not? Carpenters, artists, and craftsmen have their different tools for different needs. Writers try different approaches and use out-of -the-ordinary words and phrases. Why should astrologers be so limited with such tight boundaries of 'Yes' and 'No'? Are we afraid of appearing weak and vacillating? Yes, I think that is a major part of it. We feel pressure to be tough-minded and he-man strong in our convictions. We want to look like we've been pumping intellectual iron. . . . . . Whatever.

Can't say I've ever experienced that feeling, Kirk.

Do they not use a number of different house charts when drawing up a nativity in Jyotish?
Recently I came across a method of adapting the 5 degree rule for houses that occupy only a few degrees. You divide the degrees by three and any planet in the last third is held to belong to the next house. I have been reading a lot of different books lately and can't find the source of this at the moment but it seems sensible.

Matt

matt23z wrote:Do they not use a number of different house charts when drawing up a nativity in Jyotish?

Many Indian astrologers use the 'sign chart' (r??i-cakra) and the 'house chart' (bh?va-cakra) side by side, the latter being calculated with Porphyry (here called ?r?pati) cusps but using the cusp as the centre of the house. Other supplementary charts used are mainly divisional (~harmonics).

Many Indian astrologers use the 'sign chart' (r??i-cakra) and the 'house chart' (bh?va-cakra) side by side, the latter being calculated with Porphyry (here called ?r?pati) cusps but using the cusp as the centre of the house. Other supplementary charts used are mainly divisional (~harmonics).

Thanks Martin,

Thats very interesting. So I take it the so called 'sign chart' (r??i-cakra) is a whole sign chart while the 'house chart' (bh?va-cakra) is a quadrant system?

I wasn't aware Indian astrology also used a quadrant system like Porphyry. Are you suggesting the Porphyry cusps are the centre of Whole sign houses? How does this actually work?

I have heard of the so called Navamsha chart which I believe is based on a division of the chart using the ninth harmonic.

I was wondering what house system Indian astrologers use for horary? Is it simply whole sign or does it ever involve sign division?

Mark

Thanks Mark.

That matter of very ?stretched and squeezed houses?? as you call it is precisely why I set up this thread. Not the more arcane issue of erecting charts at the Poles. Its the practical astrological issue of real natal or horary charts from latitudes below 65N that concerns me most. Philosophically, I think the time based nature of Placidus makes it the most attractive quadrant system

Reading your first post more attentively and the name of the thread I realise I totally overlooked your intention of the thread. I guess it was because of my first post I gave the thread a polar twist.

Although the problems are interrelated the issue you discuss is also one that troubles my mind too. When I have a look at houses I also find it troublesome that (usually) two cusps can be in one sign or vice versa and more cusps can be in one sign further north. I therefore also would prefer an equal system.

Some already remarked that every house system is in basis equal. It depends on how you look at it. Campanus, which I find a very esthetic system because it uses a coordinate system in the usual mathematical sense, is equal in the division of the prime vertical and the north point as the pole of the coordinate system. Horizon system is similar but with the pole of the coordinate system tilted 90? degrees and therefore dividing the horizon in equal pieces of 30?. Regiomontanus divides the equator in equal parts but still uses the north point. Placidus divides every path parallel to the equator for the division.

Philosophically, I think the time based nature of Placidus makes it the most attractive quadrant system.

Most astrologers call Placidus a time system discerned from the other house systems being space systems. Over here http://www.astro.com/swisseph/swisseph. ... c226863998 several definitions of calculating Placidus are given (the whole ?6 gives a tecnical overview of the houses). I consider only the third option as a 'real' time system. But as it is written there a planet can rise in the west at high latitudes. In this thread http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewt ... 5f01f9f0f2 I calculated an extreme example in which the Sun might rise in the southwest, culminate in the east and set in the north west. This can be explained as the planets go up and down in declination during time. At sunrise in spring the Sun will be of lower declination than when the Sun sets. In other words during spring the Sun seems to spiral upwards like a screw because of the combined movement of the Earth's rotation and the increasing declination. In autumn the reverse is the case and the Sun spirals downwards.

Because of this 'spiral' movement the mundane parallels wouldn't litterally be parallels. For example, last week the 20th Sun was in parallel aspect with Venus. The Sun was on its way back to the south for a month, spiralling downwards. Venus was still increasing in declination, spiralling upwards. Instead of being on one parallel for a moment this method would rather see it like crossing spirals.

Another 'time' option perhaps might be the instantaneous motion at the time of birth. However this would also give crossing parallels instead of parallel parallels and in fact the former shouldn't be called parallels at all.

I think most astrologers and computer programs measure the positions according to the parallels. These then are circles parallel to the equator and perpendicular to the meridian. To me this indicates that then a positioning in space is made rather than in time. It resembles time closely but it isn't time actually. So every house system is a space system (almost litterally) observing from different points of view, the positions at a snapshot moment frozen in time.

To go back to the unequality, it is only unequal when you look at a certain division through another reference system than the division was made in. To me it would seem most logic to look through the same 'eyes' in which the division was made (e.g. like the mundane aspects). However if you want to remain 'loyal' to the ecliptic then all these systems would give unequal systems. Only the Equal divisions of either the Ascendant or the MC (and their whole sign derivations) would apply, the former being the oldest.

I cant help wondering if a lot of astrologers end up rejecting/choosing systems for such subjective criteria.

I think this is very true, I too am influenced by personal influences. Maybe this is unavoidable in astrology. Perhaps there are many roads that lead to the astrological Rome.

Do they not use a number of different house charts when drawing up a nativity in Jyotish?

There are I believe 16 divisional charts (vargas) in Indian astrology the navamsha being the most used and most known. Another house system is the Chandra lagna. Using the Moon's sign as Ascendant ( perhaps when birthtime is unknown).