I have a friend that has jupiter in the first house, opposing sun and mercury in the 7th house. Without going into all the details of his chart, I will just say that overall his chart look promising with lots of angularity. However my friend told me that he's quite unhappy with his life and feels like he has constant bad luck and disappointments which was surprising to me considering how auspicious his chart appeared. I want to add that whole sign houses is my default setting to look at charts, so as you can imagine, when I took a look at his chart using placidus, it all became clear. His jupiter opposition sun and mercury fell on the 12th and 6th house axis. Furthermore jupiter was not within 15 degrees of the ascendant (I read this in benjamin dykes ITA), so it possessed no "actual" angularity whatsoever even though its in the WSH first house.

I seem to recall it was valens who claimed that both house systems must be used in order to correctly interpret the chart, and IMO this appears to be the correct.

Similar to the Uranus associated with Aries thread here, it's best not to mix up perspectives. The WS houses are set up for interpreting topics in the realm of the concrete particular and have to do with planets deliberating objectively about the native's life (often in the 3rd person).

Valens didn't say it the way you imply. He was referring specifically to the MC degree that when it falls in the 9th or 11th signs that it also has something to report with regard to "praxis" and that one should judge from the multiplicity of testimonies. Others have suggested that this is where quadrant houses and topic houses got mixed up.

I have a different take on this, although Valens certainly didn't leave any clear instruction on what we must do. It is simply by noting details in his text that we can see that he would consider the meaning of planetary house placement by considering both perspectives. Masha'allah's charts show a similar approach of integrating meanings "by counting" (whole-sign) into that of house placement "by division".

But as for this comment:

The WS houses are set up for interpreting topics in the realm of the concrete particular and have to do with planets deliberating objectively about the native's life (often in the 3rd person).

I'm wary - I haven't seen this sort of suggestion made by any traditional author, or reported in any historical text. What we should note is that, in even the oldest texts we possess, there is a great deal of emphasis given to calculating the angles correctly before judging the chart. So for example, the opening line of instruction in Dorotheus reads:
"Always, my son, before everything [else] understand the seven [planets] in longitude and latitude, divide the four cardines by their degrees, and know with this the triplicities of the signs".

We get similar reminders to "examine the places or the intervals to the degree" in Valens, but also with this notion of considering the meaning of both the 9th and 10th houses, when the 10th place by degree falls in the 9th sign. One of the interesting remarks Valens makes on this is in his 5th book, chapter 6 (long title - basically, why things go wrong). The translation by Robert Schmidt (PH, 1997) goes:

And since the 12 places are signified for each nativity, and most things will be discovered through these and the nature of the stars, one must observe the pivot-positioning and the changes of the places; for often two places coincide on one zoidion, or else a pivotal figure is shown in the manner of a declining figure. And this happens by the opportunities for the Horoskopos.

As with the Horoskopos in Gemiini, the Midheaven in Aquarius by degree [by whole sign; MC would be Pisces]. This place, then, possesses the relation concerning activity and reputation and children [all 10th house associations of that time], and also that concerning a foreign land and god since zodiacally it is found in the 9th from the Horoskopos; and also, in its case the handing over through 4 and 5 zoidia to the Horoskopos is found to be prospering, and the handing over from the Horoskopos through 9 and 10 zoidia to the Midheaven itself prospers. Similarly also, the diameter of Aquarius (that is, Leo), which is the subterraneous pivot, possesses the relation concerning foundations, buildings, and parents, as well as that concerning god and siblings and a foreign land; and the handing over through 3 or 4 zoidia from the Horoskopos to the subterraneous pivot itself is taut, and also that from it through 10 or 11 zoidia to the Horoskopos. Similarly also, let the same be conceived in the case of the remaining zoidia of long ascension when the Midheaven falls in the hexagon. Whence if we examine the places or the intervals to the degree, we will not make a false step.

Make of that as you will. It's not an approach I fully understand or connect with myself, but I don't see any indication that house meanings were less relevant for the "intervals made to the degree".

No disprespect intended towards Curt, since he works with this material more than I do, and adds interesting perspectives. I just don't think a personal take on something should be mistaken for points we can refer to the text itself. Also, personally speaking, there is no way I could recognise a planet more than 15 degrees above the ascendant to be angular rather than cadent.

Deb wrote:But as for this comment:

The WS houses are set up for interpreting topics in the realm of the concrete particular and have to do with planets deliberating objectively about the native's life (often in the 3rd person).

I'm wary - I haven't seen this sort of suggestion made by any traditional author, or reported in any historical text.

I'm not sure what you're wary of here. My statement about the "concrete particular" simply means that as opposed to modern astrology which focuses much more on psychological traits and things that exist in the mind, the older texts were much more "practical" as in whether one's father would predecease and whether one would have children and how many, etc...

Deb wrote:Also, personally speaking, there is no way I could recognise a planet more than 15 degrees above the ascendant to be angular rather than cadent.

This is a misunderstanding based upon taking the unintended meaning of the word "kentron". The word has 2 main meanings here: one is to act as a goad like a cattle prod to prod to action, and the other meaning is a center of activity upon which something revolves around.

In the former sense of prodding to action, you would be correct that 15 degrees or more, the iron is not very hot, but a topic can be either "slack or taut" as the passage you quoted above states. Nevertheless, it is still a topic in WSH because the oikodektor (literally meaning "one who gives ear or listens to" what some sources translated as domicile lord) is responsible for the whole sign, not just the angle, but all other planets placed therein, it acts as host and "calls to witness" for the topic.

I'm not sure what you're wary of here. My statement about the "concrete particular" simply means that as opposed to modern astrology which focuses much more on psychological traits and things that exist in the mind, the older texts were much more "practical" as in whether one's father would predecease and whether one would have children and how many, etc..

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your meaining. How you put it here makes sense - so I think get your point now. I assumed you were suggeting whole signs have more relevance to objective particulars than quadrant based systems.

the beautiful thing about these general examples is we have no clue on the rulership of the sign and what condition any of those planets are in, let alone that minor little detail that is low on the priority list of many in the trad community of aspects - in this example - sun/merc opp jupiter - 2 planets that rule the mutable sign - 'mental' planets - in direct conflict with one another.. i guess that can't get talked about as it isn't trad..

james_m wrote:the beautiful thing about these general examples is we have no clue on the rulership of the sign and what condition any of those planets are in, let alone that minor little detail that is low on the priority list of many in the trad community of aspects - in this example - sun/merc opp jupiter - 2 planets that rule the mutable sign - 'mental' planets - in direct conflict with one another.. i guess that can't get talked about as it isn't trad..

I don't see any reason why one can't use both perspectives. The traditional material doesn't go into as great of depth in psychological conditions but is good within the range of the concrete particular. There is a natural division at the Saturn level where the invisible comes into the visible, so naturally that perspective that only uses the visible planets focuses more often on what can be concretely visible and ascertained as old fashioned "fact".

Sure it is (isn't it?) I see in another thread that Curtis uses traditional systems for objective matters, but uses a more modern approach for psychological matters. That is interesting to hear, but I don't feel it has to be that way myself. Traditional techniques are quite capable of assesing psychological, emotional and mental states IMO. On the other hand, we have to remember that the point made in the opening post appears to be based on one astrologer's statistical review of one example So it's an observation, but not likely to change anyone's mind.

Addition - I posted without being aware of Curtis's own reply.

Yes, traditional has lots of interesting esoteric material about the soul, etc... but not so much about the evolution of the soul, use of the nodes, etc. I traced some of these statements (for instance on the exaltation of the nodes according to Rhetorius) from the perspective of the Thema Mundi:

http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-file ... astro.html

curtis/deb

my main concern is coming to an important conclusion on house systems based on little info as in the example given here. it is difficult enough to make sense of a chart.. lacking info just increases the room for error in judgment.

James,

You might be interested in this article on house division written in 1996 by Robert Schmidt:

http://www.astrology-x-files.com/houses ... ouses.html

He told me a few years ago that he had a few edits that he wanted to make to this article, but didn't specify where, that it was close to his position but not quite...