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).
