49 by hervaro The 5? rule only pertains to house-cusps, not to sign-barriers. A signs ends at 29?59'; the next sign starts at 0?0'. So your ascendant is in the sign it is in. A planet at 29?55 of a sign, IS in that sign and not in the next. (edit) Or more in relation to your example, I should say that the 5? rule only works in the sign the cusp itself is in. So Aries-asc it is for you. If you were to have a planet at 29/55 Pisces, that would still remain in the 12th as well, because (at least in the traditional approach) the sign-boundary works as a barrier. Herman http://www.hervaro.be Quote Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:07 am
50 by Tara Here's something else to consider: a planet 5 or less degrees away from the cusp of a house is in fact about to fall further away from that house and into the preceding house by virtue of the fact that the houses themselves are moving much faster than the planet. Ergo, within minutes the planet will in fact be more firmly ensconced in the preceding house which it is presumed to have already left. Tara Quote Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:51 am
51 by dmause Tom wrote:Ptolemy does not mention that the rule of 5 degrees does not apply when the sign changes: If in fact Ptolemy used whole sign houses, he would not have mentioned this as the house and the sign are one and the same. However, if he did use whole sign houses, he is saying that at 25 degrees of a sign the planet should be read as if it were in the next sign. That never made sense to me, and I still wonder, despite Schmidt's work and the work of others, if Ptolemy used whole signs. [quote From the Greek words that he used in reference to what appear to be houses. Quote Fri Sep 17, 2010 8:35 am
52 by dmause Tara wrote:Here's something else to consider: a planet 5 or less degrees away from the cusp of a house is in fact about to fall further away from that house and into the preceding house by virtue of the fact that the houses themselves are moving much faster than the planet. Ergo, within minutes the planet will in fact be more firmly ensconced in the preceding house which it is presumed to have already left. Tara now I`m confused Quote Fri Sep 17, 2010 8:36 am
53 by Ed F Now I'm confused Diurnal motion of points on the celestial sphere is clockwise through the houses. Quote Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:31 pm
54 by dmause Ed F wrote:Now I'm confused Diurnal motion of points on the celestial sphere is clockwise through the houses. indeed, which makes me wonder what is in reality the strongest point of a house-maybe its end? Quote Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:56 pm
55 by Tara What happens in reality, as the world turns, is that planets within 5* of a house cusp are about to lose their foothold in that house as its cusp falls further and further away from them. It's like planets at the cusp of a house are hanging on by its shirt tails rather than preparing to enter that house. In reality that planet has just spent the last approximately 2 hours in that house and is now leaving it. It only works to see planets approaching the cusp of a house as entering that house if we see the house cusps as fixed once the moment of astrology has occurred, while continuing to accord movement to the planets. I continue in practice to view planets on house cusps as having entered that house already and it seems to be a reliable assumption, particularly in horary. I would just love to be able to understand how to integrate the reality of the transiting house cusps (the rotation of the earth) into the practice of assigning planets approaching house cusps to the next house. Maybe it's something to do with diurnal vs zodiacal movement? Tara Quote Fri Sep 17, 2010 3:31 pm
56 by GR Hi dmause, Actually not sure Ptolemy used "houses" at all; he uses a sort of quadrant system for the length of life calculation, and then uses signs for the various topics, but it much more focused on the planets. In fact, the planets are often used to determine the signs that are used, as in the chapter about the parents. dmause wrote: If in fact Ptolemy used whole sign houses, he would not have mentioned this as the house and the sign are one and the same. However, if he did use whole sign houses, he is saying that at 25 degrees of a sign the planet should be read as if it were in the next sign. That never made sense to me, and I still wonder, despite Schmidt's work and the work of others, if Ptolemy used whole signs. Gabe Quote Fri Sep 17, 2010 3:56 pm