Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi

I opened a new thread to deal with this topic.
Many people now use whole sign house system like Indian and Hellenic astrologers. But this system poses some problems.
Suppose someone has DEC at 29 Cancer,and Sun at 0-1 Leo.His Sun would be in 8th house by whole sign,but technically and astronomically clearly angular in 7th . I have some problems accepting that such a Sun is in 8th house.
It`s possible WS was an early primitive attempt to draw houses IMHO
Equal houses seem more logical if we wish to use a symbolic system

Thanks

ac - i think you have to find your own place with these different astrological ideas.. the sun in your example would be in a (out of sign) conjunction with the descendant - or - an opposition to the ascendant.. now, just how much do you factor in this, is going to alter the way you would view it even if you took the box approach to house systems..

the way i see it, it comes down to what you give the highest priority to.. do you give it to sign position (knowing siderealists view it differently), aspect relationships, house position ( totally dependent on a particular view point on just how house systems work by trying or not trying to incorporate the midheaven axis), or perhaps some other factors that you might deem more or less relevant to synthesizing these various different astrology techniques or systems?

it seems to me one is going to come up with more of a subjective position in keeping with how you value these different techniques of chart interpretation..

astrology is based on observation.. coming with a preconceived set of ideas will hamper one's ability to see what is actually going on.. this is why i personally think being too attached to a particular outlook or viewpoint in astrology is more of a hindrance then a benefit.. we do have to start somewhere.. if you like whole-sign houses - see what works or doesn't work for you.. that is what i, and i think others do here..

ps, i don't think whole-sign houses is a primitive attempt at drawing houses, so much as wanting to keep an emphasis on sign relationships intact with the planets falling into place with an emphasis on signs.. incorporating the midheaven axis has been the bugaboo of house systems from day one.. how does one integrate it, or does one leave it as a point in the chart? and of course houses are one of the most contentious areas of astrology where astrologers typically disagree with others on the many different house systems in place..

Thanks James

You just added another point.Sun would be opposite the AC regardless of sign. The way I do it is to look at the sky-at around sunset the Sun appears to be in what we call 7th house. Moving it 30 degrees to the 8th looks weird.
Having said that Vedic astrologers couldn`t give a monkeys`about that. As far as they`re concerned it is in 8th.
However I think astrology was always about observation,especially in the days of Greece

I basically agree with what James has said. I think any honest astrologer has to accept that house systems are amongst the most contentious area within the whole art of astrology. So I think we need to tread more carefully here than just about anywhere else in making definitive or dogmatic statements. In my opinion all house systems pose problems. Its just a question of what particular ''problem'' concerns you the most.

What makes sense to one astrologer may look totally implausible to another. Very often the attitude is quite subjective ie this house system doesn't fit my chart! Even the most distinguished astrologers can be influencced by such an approach. For example read this piece on Morin where he attacks the equal house system used by Cardano because he didn't feel equal houses fitted his life experience:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/morinchart.html

The most relevant section is as follows:

In Astrologia Gallica, Morin erects his natal chart first utilizing the Regiomontanus house system and then using the equal house system to demonstrate the absolute falsehood of the latter procedure. Under the equal house system, the stellium in question falls in his 11th [equal] house and thus the discontents, griefs, and artful manipulations that he was destined to suffer would have been transformed into personal satisfactions arising from his profession, friendships, powerful protectors, happiness and well-being for his parents, and riches for the native; but all of this was resoundingly disproved by the facts of his life.

Interestingly, whole sign would have agreed with the 12th house signification of most the relevant planets in Morin's chart using Regiomontanus houses in contrast to Equal.

Looking at things more philosophically one can find a certain approach attractive and another unappealing. Some like the symmetry of an equal or whole sign system. Others argue nature is not strictly symmmetrical and therefore quadrant systems like Placidus, Alcabitius or Koch better reflect the natural unequal ascensional rising times of signs. Many astrologers are also familiar with the Midheaven point as the 10th house cusp and feel other approaches like equal, or whole sign are more artificial by leaving the MC free floating in the chart.

Advocates of whole sign or equal might counter that the ascensional rising times of signs is not necessarily relevant to determining houses. For example, the Sun takes approximately 30 days to transit a sign and the zodiac signs approximate this.

From that more solar/sign orientated approach to houses things like intercepted houses make no sense as a useful astrological approach.

I personally, moved away from all quadrant houses some years ago because I live in a fairly high latitude location and I found the massively shrunken or expanded houses I was regularly seeing unhelpful in practical delineation terms. However, if you dont live in a high latitude locations you might only encounter this issue infrequently so it might not assume much importance for you. Equally, there are undeniably lots of astrologers have no personal problem with the effects of latitude on quadrant houses. For example, the Norwegian astrologer Andrew Bevan happily works with Regiomontanus houses in all his charts. So I guess its Vive la diff?rence!

I understand your criticism of whole sign based on early/late rising degrees. But it gets to the heart of what a house is really for doesn't it?
If equal houses makes more sense to you than go with it. I do find it useful to combine equal cusps with whole sign houses myself. A planet may be in the whole sign 7th but its signification will be different if it has fallen below the horizon. A planet near those equal cusps (or MC/IC axis) will be more powerful in my view.

But another personal issue I have is that I have seen several instances where a planet above the 1st house cusp doesn't operate like its in the 12th and is quite prominent. Neither equal or any of the conventional quadrant systems seem able to explain that phenomena to my satisfaction. But maybe thats just me. Its doesn't seem to bother most of the astrological community.

Anyway, that is my experience and why I work with whole sign houses. I am not trying to convert you to my approach. We all need to follow an approach that makes sense to us. As we all all different and work from contrasting preconceptions and experiences we are likely to go off in different directions in our approach to house systems.

Mark

thanks for your comments
isnt it a bit contradictory when people like Robert Schmitz claim that the houses are signs and not astronomical,yet Valens and others used the astronomical MC,and it had the same meaning as the 10th house?.

astrocorreia wrote:

Valens and others used the astronomical MC,and it had the same meaning as the 10th house?.

The issue of Equal (or Whole sign) 10th vs the MC was previously raised in these threads:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8233


http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8254

Mark

Astrology in part may have been based upon observation, but some concepts were clearly theoretical and not "observed". Schmidt has often said that the lots (arabic parts) demonstrate this. As for houses, Bob also had a lot to say about this subject and that the reason for the splintering of the house systems is due to trying to reduce what was intended as a theoretical composite concept into a single one. The word "kentron" has two separate meanings: 1. a center of activity around which something revolves. 2. A goad or cattle prod. We see in the words chosen for the 3 house types (angular, succeedent, cadent): apoclima, epanaphora, kentron the activity of the motion of the sky. One means to hinder or deflect, one means return a motion back to its source and kentron has already been explained. There are 2 motions, the motion of the Same, and the motion of the Other.

Because the house "system" of the ancient world was based upon these two motions, which "system" one uses depends upon which framework you're dealing with. In terms of topics, Schmidt has said that whole sign is used. When it comes to issues of eminence or the "universal hermetic techniques" I think one should also consider the motion of the Same. This is because a domicile lord has a chance to rectify a "deflected" testimony from another planet, but when using universal hermetic techniques, it is not just a matter of whether a planet is in a place conducive to business (chrematistikos as Valens puts it), but whether a planet in its potential (or universal state) has the motion of the Other considered as well. So planets used in this "wholistic" way should consider the "dynamical" divisions as Schmidt puts it because when planets act as advocates for the winds it is important which side of a kentron a planet is on. So in the case of trigon lords I believe it most important to consider both the position of a planet in regards to the angular degrees as well as whether it is upon a place "conducive to business". So please don't think it is just a matter of "which house system is the correct one". It is a matter of using the composite concepts in a cooperative manner.

Yes,some of them appear to have used diferent systems together .
However the idea that the MC is only a point seems fallacious.
Valens`description of MC is similar to 10th house,so, to say,like Rob Hand,that quadrant was used only to assess strenght seems like jumping to conclusions.

Thanks for your comment

Mark wrote:astrocorreia wrote:

Valens and others used the astronomical MC,and it had the same meaning as the 10th house?.

The issue of Equal (or Whole sign) 10th vs the MC was previously raised in these threads:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8233


http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8254

Mark

Thanks for the links Mark

The AC-MC axis is supposed to be the cross,but you can only have a cross if you use the nonagesimal,that is,the 90? from AC. I think that`s how ancient greeks calculated the houses. However as mentioned in the thread MC is the highest a planet can reach. I was born with a planet at MC and another at Ng.The one at Ng looks higher in my Stellarium,but one hour later is even higher,at the MC.
The question is:Whats more important? A planet that makes an angle to the AC or a planet at its highest point?
I also noticed that the Sun at MC remains in that altitude for about 20 minutes,or so it looks

update: From Paul`s post: "This whole topic has made me wonder about whether or not we should treat the nonagesimal and MC differently and apply some subtle nuance to its interpretation.

Really any planet at the MC is the highest it can get to in a given day, and so maybe we should see it as more 'personal' or more relative to the rest of the chart, so a planet at the MC is one which is at the height of its own power. In contrast a planet at the nonagesimal is at the height of the entire chart, it may not be at its own personal highest yet, or may even be declining from its own "personal best" but it's still overcoming the ascendant and is rising above all the other planets. Just like a star athlete may still win the race against weaker competitors even if personal private victories are going on with the other players as they beat their own personal best times."

I`d agree with Paul.But he`s assuming MC is suppposed to show planetary strenght.Valens seems to associate MC with 10th house matters

Mark
I understand you use W sign house because it explains the Gauguelin data,amongst other reasons.
However,it doesn`t explain why those degrees in 12th quadrant house appear to be more powerfull than the powerful AC degree.
Why would a planet at 4? Leo be more powerful than at an AC of 20 ? leo,as the Gauguelin hot points show?
And things aren`t so simple at the MC. Often the MC planet is in the 9th or 11th sign or 12th ,not at the Ng sign
Someone said once,the MC in 9th house is strong because that`s where the Sun has its joy,but the same person fails to mention that the MC often falls in the weak/evil 8th,6th or 12th houseswhere theoretically the planet will be weak

We tend to have selective memories regarding our favourite system.

Hi

Just got this from a researcher.

"I've just now had a quick look at MC's in the Equal houses - using 48,622 charts in 116 categories and see the distribution of MC's in the houses:
44% in H 9
44% in H10
06% in H 8
06% in H11

Something that stood out quite prominently was the MC in H8 for three categories of Gauquelin military men of note.
Then I noticed the same thing applied for those same countries for H11
The countries involved for the very high percentages (200%+ of the Expected score) were Germany, Netherlands & Belgium, but strangely Italy got 0.0 % in both of those houses. All of their 695 prominent military men had MC's in H9 or 10

You might recall that I use 18 "Themes" besides Categories.
Here are the themes that stand out for MC's in the houses:

H 8 - "VIO" + "ART" (for Violence and Artistic)
H 9 - "VCE" + "COM" (for Voice and Communication)
H10 - "PFM" (for Peforming)
H11 - ---

astrocorreia wrote:

Hi

Just got this from a researcher.

"I've just now had a quick look at MC's in the Equal houses - using 48,622 charts in 116 categories and see the distribution of MC's in the houses:
44% in H 9
44% in H10
06% in H 8
06% in H11


Something that stood out quite prominently was the MC in H8 for three categories of Gauquelin military men of note.
Then I noticed the same thing applied for those same countries for H11
The countries involved for the very high percentages (200%+ of the Expected score) were Germany, Netherlands & Belgium, but strangely Italy got 0.0 % in both of those houses. All of their 695 prominent military men had MC's in H9 or 10

You might recall that I use 18 "Themes" besides Categories.
Here are the themes that stand out for MC's in the houses:

H 8 - "VIO" + "ART" (for Violence and Artistic)
H 9 - "VCE" + "COM" (for Voice and Communication)
H10 - "PFM" (for Peforming)
H11 - --

I am unclear why you feel this is relevant to a thread on the traditional forum. I think you would be better sharing such information on the General Forum. In particular the two threads I gave links to above opened by Michael Sternbach. Like you he uses Equal houses.

Mark