Graham

What I meant is that the first sign of the zodiac is 0 Aries but the first house is only 0 Aries for someone with Aries rising. The WSH is defined from the tropical points but does not actually start from it obviously - eg I have a Scorpio ascendant so my first house is 0 Scorpio.

Though if we take it from the ascendant degree rather than 0 of that sign that's not the whole sign houses but instead equal.

Sorry you found my post tiresome, I was trying to break down the logic into small chunks.

Paul
Sorry!!! I meant to say the thread was tiresome, not the post!! No criticism of you, I can assure you and in fact it raised some interesting things.
Just a couple of points: an equal house is one that runs from, say 12 Aries to 12 Taurus (when the Ascendant is 12 of some sign or other). I think this system is now pretty much discredited.
WSH of course simply covers the whole sign, but for some (such as V.K. Choudry), the "cusp", or "most sensitive point" (better to call it that) of each WSH is still the asendant degree (of each and every sign/house). So the sensitive points of each house are somewhere withinit, not always at the beginning. In India, the quadrant houses are sometimes used the same way: most "Vedic" programs (e.g. Jagannatha Hora freeware) give option, with Placidus, Porphyry, Regio etc, of considering the calculated cusp as the middle of the house, not the beginning, so that the house will straddle the ascendant etc, like in WSH (and incidentally will inculde the most powerful Gauguelin sectors as being in 1, 10 7 and 4), but that doesn't make it an equal house.
Tropically, I still don't quite see what you mean. If you use say Placidus, your Scorpio ascendant will be in a quadrant house that includes at least part of Scorpio, but doesn't start with 0? Scorpio (the tropically defined point, i.e. 210? from the VP). The limits of the house are determined by local space/time. It is only connected to Scorpio if some or all of Scorpio is in/on it. If you use tropical WSH, the house starts (what is usually called its cusp) with that same tropically defined point, and ends with another similarly defined point 30? later, so it's scope is completely defined not by local space/time but thanks to the tropical division of the ecliptic which you explained to Zoomaster.
You can then decide whether or not to consider that the WS house has a "most sensitive point", and decide where to put it if you think so. I find that in practise having a MSP at a multiple of 30? from Asc is very useful - you can use whole sign aspects, but very tight aspects seem to be more powerful or give clearer results, and are more easily picked up with an ascendant-determined MSP. Also, it underlines the partial determination of house topics and qualities by the relationship of each house to the ascendant.
Sorry again for the misunderstanding abou the thread!
Graham

Graham F wrote:Paul
Sorry!!! I meant to say the thread was tiresome, not the post!! No criticism of you, I can assure you and in fact it raised some interesting things.
Just a couple of points: an equal house is one that runs from, say 12 Aries to 12 Taurus (when the Ascendant is 12 of some sign or other). I think this system is now pretty much discredited.
WSH of course simply covers the whole sign, but for some (such as V.K. Choudry), the "cusp", or "most sensitive point" (better to call it that) of each WSH is still the asendant degree (of each and every sign/house). So the sensitive points of each house are somewhere withinit, not always at the beginning. In India, the quadrant houses are sometimes used the same way: most "Vedic" programs (e.g. Jagannatha Hora freeware) give option, with Placidus, Porphyry, Regio etc, of considering the calculated cusp as the middle of the house, not the beginning, so that the house will straddle the ascendant etc, like in WSH (and incidentally will inculde the most powerful Gauguelin sectors as being in 1, 10 7 and 4), but that doesn't make it an equal house.

Sorry Graham for the misunderstanding, though I wasn't insulted by it and probably would accept my post was a bit tedious as well, but just in trying to break down the varying differences and comparisons involved.

I see what you mean regarding the whole sign houses, obviously the cusp of the whole sign house is still 0 of that house, however there may be 'sensitive areas' within it which are, in some contexts, more important. I am aware that some of this exists with hindu house systems though I've no practical experience of it and have only a cursory understanding of it, so I'll accept any of your points if any of mine contradict them!

Tropically, I still don't quite see what you mean. If you use say Placidus, your Scorpio ascendant will be in a quadrant house that includes at least part of Scorpio, but doesn't start with 0? Scorpio (the tropically defined point, i.e. 210? from the VP). The limits of the house are determined by local space/time. It is only connected to Scorpio if some or all of Scorpio is in/on it. If you use tropical WSH, the house starts (what is usually called its cusp) with that same tropically defined point, and ends with another similarly defined point 30? later, so it's scope is completely defined not by local space/time but thanks to the tropical division of the ecliptic which you explained to Zoomaster.
You can then decide whether or not to consider that the WS house has a "most sensitive point", and decide where to put it if you think so. I find that in practise having a MSP at a multiple of 30? from Asc is very useful - you can use whole sign aspects, but very tight aspects seem to be more powerful or give clearer results, and are more easily picked up with an ascendant-determined MSP. Also, it underlines the partial determination of house topics and qualities by the relationship of each house to the ascendant.

I think perhaps you've read too much into my point about the whole signs not starting at 0 Aries - my point was just to highlight that no major sidereal considerations are used. Really the quote you mentioned could be dropped as it was only to first explain how whole signs are calculated in order to demonstrate this. Just to reiterate what the quote was: "The whole sign house system is just acknowledging this very same division of units, only rather than begin at 0 aries, we just begin at whatever the division (ie sign) is that the ascendant falls into."

You can see that all I'm acknowledging here is that the tropical division of signs is in use with whole sign houses (as opposed to say, sidereal, unless one is using a sidereal zodiac). The last point was just to say what whole sign houses are, obviously not every HOUSE EXAMPLE begins at 0 Aries, but begins at the ascendant sign. Hence 0 Aries isn't on my first house cusp, but 0 Scorpio is (hence my point that it's the same divisions, but with a different focus on where the starting point is, perhaps I worded this confusingly?).

I think perhaps this is a 'non point' to extent and served only to first clarify what whole signs were so I could demonstrate that there is nothing overtly sidereal about them! I also wanted to imply that the tropical zodiac is itself a division into quadrants and beg the question therefore what makes one definition by quadrants (from the solstice and equinoxes) so much more important than another (from the mc and ascendant etc.).

I think we just misunderstood each other here, I was just making a very simple point, so I don't disagree with what you wrote in response (though I like to think that Equal hasn't been 'entirely discredited' so I'm not sure what you mean by that, though I don't want to go off on a tangent).

there is nothing overtly sidereal about [WSH] ! I also wanted to imply that the tropical zodiac is itself a division into quadrants and beg the question therefore what makes one definition by quadrants (from the solstice and equinoxes) so much more important than another (from the mc and ascendant etc.).

Thanks Paul, all clear now.
Re equal houses, maybe not "entirely discredited", but I very rarely hear of anyone using them, and over the years I've read a number of things about how early astrological texts or charts which were initially thought to be implying equal houses were probably using WSH.
But visually, I find it very helpful to have the ascendant horizontal, with the WSH slightly askew to allow this, rather than the reverse. Some programs (e.g. Morinus) do this automatically for WSH, but in SF for example I have to use Equal houses and choose a wheel style that clearly shows the signs around the outside.
Graham

Graham F wrote:

there is nothing overtly sidereal about [WSH] ! I also wanted to imply that the tropical zodiac is itself a division into quadrants and beg the question therefore what makes one definition by quadrants (from the solstice and equinoxes) so much more important than another (from the mc and ascendant etc.).

Thanks Paul, all clear now.
Re equal houses, maybe not "entirely discredited", but I very rarely hear of anyone using them, and over the years I've read a number of things about how early astrological texts or charts which were initially thought to be implying equal houses were probably using WSH.
But visually, I find it very helpful to have the ascendant horizontal, with the WSH slightly askew to allow this, rather than the reverse. Some programs (e.g. Morinus) do this automatically for WSH, but in SF for example I have to use Equal houses and choose a wheel style that clearly shows the signs around the outside.
Graham

I use equal if I really want a house-for-sign approach, not just because it's easier to see if the ascendant is on the left, but also because I know that any planets at a house cusp are going to be closer to perfecting an aspect with the ascendant, which can sometimes be useful. It doesn't add much benefit, but as it doesn't take any away I figure why not.

Paul wrote:

I use equal if I really want a house-for-sign approach, not just because it's easier to see if the ascendant is on the left, but also because I know that any planets at a house cusp are going to be closer to perfecting an aspect with the ascendant, which can sometimes be useful.

That's exactly what I do, but I'd call it "whole sign with the ascendant degree as sensitive point". It's only "equal house" if you say that each house is 30? and straddles 2 signs (except in the highly unusual case of an ASC exactly on 0? of a sign). I learnt this "whole sign with sensitive point" in my first astro lessons, which were on the Choudry "Systems Approach" of Indian astrology, and this is one of the things I've stuck with from it. He calls the sensitive point the Most Efficient Point (MEP).
On equal houses, I remember also that Morin de Villefranche somewhere analyses his own chart at some length, and insists that it shows that Regio houses are correct and Equal ones quite wrong; he doesn't mention other systems, but Placidus gives the same placements as Regio, and so does WSH, in the main, if I remember - but it's as though he hasn't heard of WSH, and the debate was just between equal and Regio.
Graham

it looks like all 3 of us are doing the same! grahams quote of paul is what i refer to.. i don't really care if others fail to understand this approach, as it is fairly obvious and easier to read then putting the chart at zero pisces or whatever the whole sign is on the ascendant.. i find that approach lacks definition myself..

Below is an example of a "bad" nativity which may be of interest. It is the figure of a dear friend of mine who died on 7th March this year after suffering from MS for 36 years and very severely for the past 15 years.

I won't delineate the chart in any detail here but clearly the Saturn/Mars conjunction in Cancer opposing the Moon in Capricorn catches the eye straightaway as do all the 12th house planets and the fact that all her planets are in detriment/fall with the exception of Jupiter which is afflicted anyway by conjoining Vindemaitrix.

I would just say that prior to 1977 she was a successful singer in a band so the whole of her life wasn't all bad.

It is a chart like this which, in the free will/ fate debate puts me firmly in the Fate camp. I am with Vettius Valens in considering us all to be "soldiers of fate"! Obviously I have been very upset that she suffered so much and was very relieved for her when she died.

I only began studying traditional astrology 4 years ago. Prior to that I had charted her horoscope but couldn't see its significance. That says a great deal about modern astrology or maybe just my ineptitude! To me now it seems a mercy I didn't understand it and it is why I have put away all the charts of my friends and family for fear of what I might find. I only use charts of deceased family members or strangers now.
Btw I would prefer not to have shown the distracting and confusing aspect lines.
[/img]

The Yorkshire Ripper has the same conjunction in his chart.After Reading this thread I looked at charts of mass murderers at Astrodatabank. Initially I found that some of the most notorious,like Bundy,Gacy or Dennis Nilsen had at least one malefic in bad position, but Thomas Hamilton,the Dunblan murderer doesn`t and when I looked at whole list of murderers the effect seemed to fade away. I dont`t know why this happens so often but is one reason not to jump to conclusions.Some of the bad guys even have Saturn in Libra or Mars in Aries.

Regards
Anja Gladbek

edit

Here is a candidate for a bad nativity. It is from a Whole Sign House Chart. I am going to categorize the 'badnesses' by House placement, essential dignities, and aspects.

Badness by House Placement

Sun in the Eighth House
Venus in the Eighth House
Mercury in the Eighth House

Saturn in the 7th House
Moon in the 7th house (about 15 degrees from Saturn)

Mars is the 9th House (though this is the 'strongest' cadent House, so perhaps this is not bad--then again, it is Mars)

Midheaven in the 10th in Scorpio--no planets nearby at all.

Part of Fortune is in the 12th House, in Capricorn, ruled by Saturn (though the 12th House is Saturn's Joy)

Badness by Sign placement

Venus in Virgo, Fall
Mars in Libra, Detriment
Jupiter in Gemini, Detriment
Saturn in Leo, Detriment

Badness by Essential Dignity

Moon, Peregrine, - 5 (ex conditione)
Venus, -1 (has dignity by Triplicity, making up for being in its Fall)
Mars, -5 (ex conditione)
Jupiter, -4
Saturn, -4 (though in Hayz)

Only the Sun is +1 and Mercury a stellar +10 (Mercury is in Virgo, its domicile, and exaltation and has dignity by Face)

Badness by rulership:

Saturn, debilitated, rules the Ascendant and the House of the Part of Fortune (12th House)

Badness by Aspect

Sun square Jupiter (debilitated, though a square to the Sun by a benefice can be quite positive)
Mars Trine Jupiter (both debilitated)
Mars trine Ascendant (malefic debilitated)

Other Badness:

Sun is 7 degrees from the Moon (a New Moon)--in different houses, so the Moon is likely in Combust.

Goodness:
Now, to be fair, it's not ALL bad, but redemption is rather slim:

Mercury is highly dignified, exalted in Virgo. It is also at 29 degrees Virgo, on the other side of Mars at 00.26 Libra--the Aires Point. By symmetry, this is interesting--though it is with a Malefic, which could make the dignified Mercury malefic. Mercury, dignified also rules the 8th House, perhaps helping matters there.

Sun is in Sect
Saturn is in Sect
Jupiter is in Sect (though set below the horizon in a day chart--same hemisphere as the Sun, however).

The Sun Square Jupiter--Jupiter in the 5th, even though in its detriment in Gemini, could help the less pleasing aspects of Virgo in the Sun. Jupiter is also at 00.08 degrees of Gemini so in a powerful place.

The Part of Spirit is in the First House in Aquarius--a good placement for such a Part.

Any thoughts on this Nativity, based on what's seen here?

Thanks!