Whole sign vs Quadrant house - Signification (Areas of life) 1 by Vasanth Hello All, I was wondering how do you treat a planet which is in particular house as per whole sign houses but in a different house as per quadrant house system. Everyone seems to agree that quadrant house system gives the intensity of a planet. Planet in an angular house are the strongest, in succeeding middling and in cadent weak. What about signification? Say a planet is in the 8th house by quadrant but in the 9th by whole sign, how do we interpret this? Do we say that the planet has affect only on the 9th house or does it have affect on the affairs of both the houses (possibly merging the meanings of the two houses)? Also say 2nd house cusp sign is same as the Ascendant sign as per quadrant house. In this case who is the ruler of the 2nd house - the 1st house ruler or the 2nd sign ruler? All those who use whole sign houses, it will be very helpful if you provide your views based on your experience. I was listening to one of Robert Hand's recorded lecture (2008) where he says, "Quadrant house systems are used to calculate intensity of the planets. Areas of life are got from whole sign houses". He goes on to say further, "I don?t know for certain that houses with the Ascendant as the cusp of the first and Midheaven as the cusp of the tenth are necessarily irrelevant even for significations. All I can tell you I don?t need them. I don?t need them to get at the right answer. Even on horary I don?t need them. Horary, I use whole sign houses." So can we use whole sign houses to get areas of life (significations) exclusively? Does this approach works in practice? I think this has been discussed in different places in this forum, but I don't seem to get the complete picture. Vasanth Quote Thu Aug 18, 2011 5:12 am
2 by Hermes Hi Vasanth I started using whole sign houses some years ago, first in natal charts, and now even in horaries. My reasons for doing so was the article by Robert Schmidt (a must-read I find) called 'The Facets of Fate', which gives a very good alternative for explaining how the houses were assigned the topics they now have. These reasons have to do with Fate-concepts. The dynamical housedivisions (all the systems using cusps) seem to have originally been designed to measure strength of planets, not topics. Somewhere in history this issue got mixed up presumably (The early Arabs seem to have used whole sign houses) and got merged together, and since the housecusps became topical. Topics = what? Strength = how much/how often? So, whole sign houses are for topical indications. Dynamical houses are for strength, which someone explained to me as the capacity of a planet to produce more (often). So a planet in a dynamical angle can produce more events for the topics it represents (as per its whole sign topical indications). So, your example would be thus: the planet is in the whole sign 9th, so it has 9th house issues as its significations, not 8th house issues (although Valens says that in such cases the 8th shares in 9th house topics, and vice versa). It's location in the 8th says that it has the power to be more active for 9th house issues, as opposed to it being in the 9th itself, which is declining. It has however less power compared to a planet that would be in a dynamical angle. Hermes Quote Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:36 am
3 by Tom I recall that when Hand first discovered whole sign houses that he used both. In lectures he would put up dual charts (easily done in Solar Fire and Janus) with each ring containing one system. Apparently he has switched to whole signs entirely. As for me, every time I decided to use whole signs, something happened in a chart that, I thought anyway, could not be explained using whole signs, so I stuck with quadrant. Then something would happen where whole signs looked good so ..... and on and on. I recently finished Bend Dykes fine new book Traditional Astrology For Today and became very interested in the concept of aversion. I'd heard of aversion of course, its been mentioned here enough, but admittedly never paid too much attention to it. There is a lot of good information out there, and we can't embrace all of it. In a little more than 30 years traditional astrology has gone from a dearth of good information in English to an embarrassment of riches. But I did pay attention this time and since it is easier to understand using whole signs I started playing with the concept that way in both natal and mundane astrology (where so far I think it really shines). Now I don't like it when astrologers talk about their own charts. The implication is that what happens in their charts and life is universal in nature and it isn't. But I will make an exception for myself this once. Including the outer three, when I switch to whole signs every planet changes houses except Mercury: i.e. 9 of 10. The MC is in the 10th sign though. For this reason I never switched. I could not believe that whole signs could be valid if almost everything changed in my chart. I suppose I thought that negated everything I ever learned and I couldn't abide by that. Maybe I didn't want to lose an angular Sun to the 8th house. But using aversion and whole signs there are things in my chart that are clear that are not so clear using Placidus, Regio, or Alcabitius. So for now I'd say look hard at both and if the native is at a stage in his or her life where reflection is based on a lot of experience and some objectivity, ask questions and see if whole signs just don't work better or at least provide a different perspective. Lest there be any misunderstanding, I am NOT advocating wholesale abandonment of quadrant houses. I am advocating taking a peek at whole signs if you haven't already done so. I'm sticking with Regio for horary though. Can't help it. Quote Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:41 pm
4 by Hermes Hi Tom I recall that when Hand first discovered whole sign houses I'm sure the above sentence is not meant the way it reads . It was James Holden who was - if I'm not mistaken - the first one who 'discovered' whole sign houses in astrologcial texts, and coined the term. Hermes Quote Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:36 am
5 by Tom I meant personally discovered as in, he first learned about them. I didn't mean that he was the first person who discovered them. You're right, it didn't come out that way. Quote Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:32 am
6 by Wolfgang Hi,Tom, Hi Hermes, I don't understand the meaning, that R. Hand, or J. Holden, "discovered whole sign houses?"':-?') It whas known sure earlier before Walter Koch an Wilhelm Knappich (1956) when they wrote the book "Horoskpe und Himmelh?user" where this theme is also in. But there before the german astrologers used whole sign houses as Vehlov, Glahn, and Witte. They used this in the early 20th century (19xx.). Based on the meaning that the ancient used this a long time(before)! -------------- Wolfgang Quote Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:49 am
7 by Tom In American English it is acceptable to say that so and so "discovered" something and not mean that he was the first to find it. I can, for example "discover the joys of fine wine." No American would believe I was saying that I was the first person in history to enjoy wine. In other words, "discovery" is not limited to the initial finding. I can discover a restaurant or a previously unknown to me seaside resort. From the American Heritage Dictionary, emphasis added. dis?cov?er audio (d-skvr) KEY TRANSITIVE VERB: dis?cov?ered, dis?cov?er?ing, dis?cov?ers To notice or learn, especially by making an effort: got home and discovered that the furnace wasn't working. To be the first, or the first of one's group or kind, to find, learn of, or observe. To learn about for the first time in one's experience: discovered a new restaurant on the west side. To learn something about: discovered him to be an impostor; discovered the brake to be defective. To identify (a person) as a potentially prominent performer: a movie star who was discovered in a drugstore by a producer. Archaic To reveal or expose. Quote Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:41 am
8 by Hermes Hello Wolfgang If that is so, I stand corrected! Good of you to mention this! Can you refer me to some books of these authors, particularly on this topic. I can read German and I'm very interested in their writings on this subject. Hermes Quote Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:50 am
9 by Eddy Tom wrote:In American English it is acceptable to say that so and so "discovered" something and not mean that he was the first to find it.Interesting how a word can have different meanings. It reminds me of reading about the Topocentric house system when Polich and Page write: "First and foremost we must point out the following: we did not construct the Topocentric System of Houses ? we discovered it." source: http://www.levante.org/domification/topocentre1.html Although one can argue that mathematically it has always been there like the outer planets had always been there, the use of Topocentric houses is in my impression an invention of modern age. Quote Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:47 pm
10 by Wolfgang Hi Tom [quote] In other words, "discovery" is not limited to the initial finding. I can discover a restaurant or a previously unknown to me seaside resort. From the American Heritage Dictionary, emphasis added.[quote] Ok, I understand now your meaning. I am not a native speaker, so I miss some fine feelings for special words. (':brows') ---------- Wolfgang Quote Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:52 pm
11 by Wolfgang Hi, Hermes Hermes wrote:Hello Wolfgang If that is so, I stand corrected! Good of you to mention this! Can you refer me to some books of these authors, particularly on this topic. I can read German and I'm very interested in their writings on this subject. The books of the author Glahn can only be reached by bookseller of old (antiquary) books. He also used a mixed house system, like as Witte. Witte used more or dif. House system. For example, like one that is in german called "Erdh?user" which is ordinary Sign = house. But he also use a house system (this also 30? each) but this houses begins with the place of the planets. But the beginning there is different by some "Planetes". So Sun and Mars are on the cusp of the 4th house. Moon on 10th. - Also by the "Erdh?user" the first house is Libra not Aries. No start with the AS. But he used also AS and MC houses. But in MC houses the AS is not always in 1, could be in 12 too. So this remembers to the House system like the old used a system of houses of pars fortune (starpoint of AS!) Only Vehlow used the house like sighn like as the old, and still now the yotish astrologers. But this astrologers where inspired of the old antic tradition! Witte you can get may on Amazon, but not easy to read. Thinks very mathematical! Vehlow is free in Internet. (8 Books) Quote Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:15 pm
12 by PFN Tom wrote:I recently finished Ben Dykes fine new book Traditional Astrology For Today and became very interested in the concept of aversion. I'd heard of aversion of course, its been mentioned here enough, but admittedly never paid too much attention to it. There is a lot of good information out there, and we can't embrace all of it. In a little more than 30 years traditional astrology has gone from a dearth of good information in English to an embarrassment of riches. But I did pay attention this time and since it is easier to understand using whole signs I started playing with the concept that way in both natal and mundane astrology (where so far I think it really shines). Yes, aversion has been on the top of my priorities when reading a chart lately. Just yesterday, on a consultation, it was thanks to aversion that I could pinpoint an uneventful area in a native's life. Speaking about my chart (I know, we should not see our personal charts as the reflection of absolute truth, as Tom wisely pointed) I noticed that signs in aversion to the ASC and/or in aversion to the whole sign house where a ruler of a topic was posited, would not activate events during transits. In order to a transit trigger an event, it would have to be able to see the ruler of said event and the rising sign (the rising sign is likely the Hyleg in my chart). I found that pattern very amusing. About the whole signs discussion, since I started with traditional, I'd use whole signs to qualify matters and quadrant to gauge strength. I know that there is a lot of discussion going on over this, and some astrologers find it dificult to untangle this, but for me this approach makes a lot of sense. Paulo Felipe Noronha Quote Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:44 pm