16
Personally, I disagree with the "strict boundary" approach to house cusps because it is not compatible with the concept of orbs, which are an incredibly important part of traditional astrology. Yes, we can now calculate positions of cusps and planets down to the nth degree, but this is missing the point somewhat. Astrology requires a qualitative, not a quantitative, approach. Of course a planet can "shine through" a cusp, if it's close enough. It has an orb which extends from its exact location, an area of influence which does not end abruptly, but which "fizzles out" at the edges. As is clear if you have ever watched the Sun rise, casting so much light before it's even over the horizon!

Of course, an aspect can only perfect when the angle is exact, but this is not to say that an aspect which is applying by 4 or 5 degrees has no effect. Of course it does; the orbs are in contact. In my experience this applies to house cusps just as well as planets. The house cusp may not have an orb, but the planet most certainly does.

As for the issue of early/late Ascendants, the evidence is out there on this very forum that it is an important consideration. The chart may be readable in such cases, but this does not negate the importance of the *consideration*. In astrology it is important to use all of the tools at our disposal, to evaluate a chart as accurately and as clearly as possible. We shouldn't chuck out a bunch of stuff just because everyone has a computer and we can now calculate a chart down to the last second. Astrology is still the same; the methods and considerations have not changed just because computers have been invented.

Keren

17
I want to reinforce the views of the last two posts, which really say what I was planning to say myself. I am constantly running across this idea that the early and late ascendants were all about having a ?calculation fudge factor?, and that they are meaningless now that we have computers. This idea undermines what the considerations are about, and how they help to fill our judgements not prevent them. It is a constant principle that significators about to leave their signs, or having just moved into new ones, are loaded with meaning, and it is the application of these meanings of early or late circumstances that are built into the need to consider ascendants in early or late degrees. To ignore them is to ignore a very descriptive adjective in our horary terminology.

I always apply the 5 degree rule myself, and I am perfectly happy with the results of that (so much so that I teach it to anyone who will listen). Even before I started studying horary and adopted that as a ?technique? I tended to view a planet that was in conjunction of the MC as being connected to the symbolic principles of the 10th house, rather than the 9th. Also, many traditional sources tell us that the further away a planet is from the cusp, the weaker its influence in that house. But surely, if this is a natal chart, it will be easy for you to tell whether this is a midheaven/10th planet (in which case it will be bristling with its relevance in the chart and very open and manifest in its influence). If that is not the case then you might say that it is a 9th house planet (I would say that the time is obviously wrong, because any planet within 5 degrees of the MC should be jumping up and down with its importance :))

18
This may be a dumb question, but why do we even use the 5 deg rule if the planets move backwards through the houses (e.g. 1st, to 12th, 11th, etc from East to West in the sky)? Shouldn't we apply it to planets in the early degrees of a house which are about to enter the previous (or next depending on how you see it) house's late degrees?
It is painful to look at your trouble and know that you yourself and no one else has made it.

19
but why do we even use the 5 deg rule if the planets move backwards through the houses (e.g. 1st, to 12th, 11th, etc from East to West in the sky)?
The motion you're describing is diurnal or primary motion. It is clockwise. The five-degree rule applies to movement through the zodiac, which is in the opposite direction or counter-clockwise. The position of a planet (except the Moon) in zodiac hardly changes at all during the day even though it will move 360 degrees of primary motion in about 24 hours.

Tom

20
I guess my understanding was that you were applying the 5 deg rule to the houses, not the signs, which doesn't make sense to me if the planets are moving out of the houses, not into them through the cusp. Which means that when I'm assessing a chart, I'm taking that movement into account. Should I be setting the house frames down as static, then, when I assess planets in relation to them? I usually do, but I'm curious if this is "correct" or at least why we do this.
It is painful to look at your trouble and know that you yourself and no one else has made it.

21
Elfpower,

Within your question, it seems, is the belief that crept in over the centuries that cusps are the beginning of the houses. The original idea was of the cusp as the most powerful point within the house. As Rob Hand has written (and I should probably quit quoting) bicuspid teeth are teeth with two points, not two beginnings.

So, going back to comments on page 1, if we're calculating house cusps to the second we're getting as close as we can to the point of power within the house, not to the boundary between houses.

Here's a link to an old thread:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1575

And Tom's more recent thread, where he wrote:
The cusp, then, is the pressure point, like the tip of a sword or spear or knife. It is not the beginning of anything.
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4088

22
I guess my understanding was that you were applying the 5 deg rule to the houses, not the signs,
Let's start with what the idea of the five-degree rule is: the house begins five degrees of celestial longitude prior to the cusp. The cusp is the most sensitive point of the house. For example today Jupiter is at 12 Aquarius. Let's cast a chart for a time when the 5th house cusp is at 15 Aquarius. Jupiter is within five degrees of that house cusp, so Jupiter is considered to be in the 5th house as the house begins five degrees prior to the cusp. In order for Jupiter to be conjunct the cusp, Jupiter would have to move counter-clockwise from 12 to 15 Aquarius. He is moving that way, but slowly. Jupiter's diurnal motion is clockwise. His diurnal or daily motion has nothing to do with the five-degree rule.

Tom

23
Tom wrote:
I guess my understanding was that you were applying the 5 deg rule to the houses, not the signs,
His diurnal or daily motion has nothing to do with the five-degree rule.

Tom
Perfect, just what I was asking =)

I do find that the 5 deg rule works in my own chart, too. Jupiter was in the 6th, 4 deg from the 7th house, which I experience very much in my relationships.
It is painful to look at your trouble and know that you yourself and no one else has made it.

24
The original idea was of the cusp as the most powerful point within the house. As Rob Hand has written (and I should probably quit quoting) bicuspid teeth are teeth with two points, not two beginnings. if we're calculating house cusps to the second we're getting as close as we can to the point of power within the house, not to the boundary between houses.
An excellent point. Well said!

Mark

25
Now for the stupid question (I'm not real with-it today, a vertebra in my neck has done something awful and I'm a little - medicated - on Baclofen and morphine, so forgive if this was covered and I missed it):

If you're using Whole Sign houses, would the 5 degree rule still apply?

26
Olivia wrote:Now for the stupid question (I'm not real with-it today, a vertebra in my neck has done something awful and I'm a little - medicated - on Baclofen and morphine, so forgive if this was covered and I missed it):

If you're using Whole Sign houses, would the 5 degree rule still apply?
I would say no, for two reasons:

1 - The 5? rule relates to the cusp, and the cusp as the most sensitive degree within the house would not be it's begining, hence the reason to use this rule at all. I'm of the opinion that the 5? shows a moment of transition as well, but that could lead to confusion if you take signs into consideration, so leave this way of thinking out for now.

2 - The Wholesigns system, in my opinion, reflects the notion that there is an alignment of the house with the sign into which the cusp falls. When you think about wide orbs aspects or reception by sign, if a planet in the 12th in a quadrant system is in the same sign of the AC, would it have more say to the 12th or to the 1st house? Explaining my point, think, if we have Libra Rising, at for example, 17?, Venus in Libra 5?, and Mars in Libra 23?, would Venus have anything to do with the 12th or more with the 1st? And it's relation to Mars in the 1st, what would it be, of a hidden enemy or the manifestation of the 1st house almuten (could be both, but which one is more important)? I'd say Venus in this case is more about 1st than 12th, despite being ruler of 1st. To make myself clearer, if you replace Venus with Mercury in this case, and other aspects concur, the person could very well be a psychatrist, a medical writer, a doctor at a hospital, a judge (someone that imprisons) and not always the victim of 12th house affairs, but instead and more often, the enforcer. If this mercury was in Virgo, and in aversion to, say, the Moon I'd guess it would not be so, the lack of aspect of it with Mars and Moon would somewhat change this delineation, making Mercury much less damaging to the native (after all Mercury in Virgo, even in 12th, is still strong and honoured) but also producing much less impact on the native's profession, physicall body and manners (since Mars and the AC would have little to do with this Mercury in a sign wich is averse to them).

In my concept, Whole Signs shows that sign boundary=house boundary reflects a relationship of Angles, Cusps and Planets that happen to fall within thoses signs, which the quadrant system does not show so openly. So I'd say that a house beggining=0? instead of it's most sensitive point is a reflection of the notion that what we are made of actually follows the zodiacal order (1st house=1st sign and so on, which I point, is different from the poor analogy modern astrology advocates sometimes). The 5? degree rule sort of acknowledges this, still it seems, it's not untill reaching the house cusp that a planet can manifest it's full strength and clearly meddle into that house affairs.

Am I advocating Wholesigns then? No. But the phylosophy of aspects by sign makes much more sense when you use it. Still, into horary astrology cusps and that blurred zone before the cusp is of utmost importance as well, so this is just another opinion on this matter.