View Single Post
Minderwiz's Avatar
Minderwiz  Minderwiz is offline
Student of Astrology
Join Date: 20 Apr 2002
Location: Wigan, UK
Posts: 7,888

Originally Posted by daphne View Post
Yes, Frawley does not use the whole sign houses (I was about to ask what WSH means, now I realized) and understand the rational behind, there are 2 different movements, Earth rotation (house) and Earth around Sun (signs). They cannot always perfectly juxtapose. I am curious about the rational behind WSH.
WSH is the original system for topical houses - that is houses that deal with areas of life and things related to them. The rationale is quite straightforward; the sign rising on the Eastern horizon gives you the hour marker, or Ascendant. The whole of that sign becomes the first house, relating to you and your mind body and spirit. The rising sign, is just that, it has not yet fully risen, so it connects you to both heaven and Earth.

The advantages of WSH, especially in horary is that each house is exactly one whole sign with one clear ruler. There's not issue with intercepted houses or miniscule houses. I had one Regiomontanus chart recently in which the Sun was in the seventh house, yet it was in almost exact sextile to the seventh cusp. By Whole Sign Houses it was in the ninth house.

Quadrant systems, such as Placidus and Regiomontanus were originally designed to test planetary strength, not to deal with topics.

Originally Posted by daphne
And he also advise (quite strong) to use only Regiomontanus system for horary, because "it works".
Placidus, Regiomontanus, are all some systems named after their inventors, yes?
Then why are considered one better then other?
What makes people to adhere to one or another? Just the force of habit? some rational? it is easier or makes more sense to them? (I dont know if this questions should go on on this thread, maybe I should just make another one with beginners questions, you decide).
Regiomontanus does work but then so does WSH, Placidus, etc. When I came into Astrology there was great debate about the best house system and a clear belief that there was one and it could be determined mathematially. That was not the first time that the debate took off. Somewhere around the turn of the first millenium there was a similar debate, couched more in terms of determiing the house system that Ptolemy described. That was clearly a quadrant system but the wording was so terse that it was not at all clear what how it was actually calculated in practice.

In fact Ptolemy's description occurs where he is discussing the length of life technique and this was the area where all Hellenistic Astrologers used a quadrant system. For topics they used whole sign houses and very likely Ptolemy did the same.

Since that first debate over a thousand years ago, Western Astrology has seen house systems as being primarily quadrant. In Jyotish (Vedic Astrology) they are primarily whole sign and that's because they imported the from the West well before the first Ptolemy debate.

Does it really matter? No I don't think it's a vital issue but I have been trying whole signs recently and there are at least some places where they seem to work well. At the moment there's a resurgence of interest in them but it does come down to which you find the most comfortable. Astrologers tend to be quite conservative. When Astrology was revived at the end of the nineteenth century the only house tables that were easily accesible were Placidus and that's why it became the norm in the twentieth century. Inertia has kept it at number one though there's always a fashion to try something different. I don't see Placidus being replaced as the most popular system but remember that's not because it's objectively the best but because it is the one that most Astrologers pick up when they learn.

Morinus allows you to change the house system easily, so you can always try them out.
Top   #39