Using Whole Signs or Placidus for Natal

1
Lately I have been stuck on whether to use Placidus or Whole Signs for casting my birth chart. This is probably the toughest thing that I've had to deal with in traditional work so far and I need some insight on whether to use the oldest form of chart casting, or use a quadrant-based chart such as Placidus or Koch.

I've cast my chart in both house systems and there are many things that ring true to me in Placidus compared to Whole Sign.

In Placidus, I have Sun in the 7th in Leo, Moon in 9th in Scorpio, Mercury+Venus+Mars in the 7th in Virgo, Jupiter in the 5th in Cancer, and Saturn in the 11th in Capricorn.

In Whole Signs, I have Sun in the 7th/Leo, Moon in 10th/Scorpio, Mercury+Venus+Mars in 8th/Virgo, Jupiter in 6th/Cancer, and Saturn in 12th/Capricorn.

The problem is, I am more comfortable with Placidus than Whole Sign simply because it makes more sense to me. On the flip side, I feel like I'm missing something by picking one or the other, perhaps kidding myself into thinking one way rather than looking objectively at both. Why was the whole sign system neglected for use of quadrant systems like Placidus if whole sign allegedly gives more accurate results? What do YOU think of these two? I am asking because there is so much speculation on which house system to use, and people are always saying, "Pick one you are most comfortable with"...but I feel that that isn't the best solution. Additionally, I was born well below the 66 degree latitude of Placidus' polar problems, so it actually works very nicely. But still, Whole Signs...

Please let me know what you think, this is very important to me and I have no idea where to begin. Thank you.

2
Dajorok:

I really think the "what you are comfortable with" is not such a bad idea, and even better "what works best for you," that is, seems to give you reliable results consistently.

I use Placidus. It seems to work very well.

One night, in the wee hours, a friend of mine called me and she was distrauht in extreme. She had just had a terrible dream presaging her own death. I cast a horary about her dream...she wanted to know if it was prophetic.

And, exactly on the horizon of her horary sat the Placidus cusp of her natal 8th. Odds against that, 359:1. No other sign system would have produced such results, and of course it was superlatively "apropos" to the question.

I am not proselytizing for any particular house system. All I am saying is that, for me, Placidus has shown itself to be a good way to divide the sky.

Seems to me that the sole criteria for selecting a house system, or any other sort of system or astrological tool is this: Does it produce consistently reliable results?

And, you appear to be just starting out. Don't you think you could experiment with different systems over the years to come and then decide which works best after you have more experience? The process of testing different ideas for yourself, rather than relying wholly on books or on Self-Proclaimed Geniuses like me, seems the wise course to take. You will learn a lot just by doing the studies...of horoscopes, not theories.

3
I was the same as you until a few months ago but I decided to pick an era to study and go with what they used.

I started with Lilly and used divisional houses and it seemed fine but then I started using Valens and Masha'allah and so tested their methods with whole-sign and I must say, I think their natal work is much more rich, elegant and accurate, so I stuck with them and whole-sign. I guess I am saying you should begin with whatever system your teacher uses and learn their techniques first before experimenting. The correct system for me certainly had a greater impact on me, so I don't see why it wouldn't for you.

4
Dajorok, I would suggest that you not choose a single house system as though you could fasten upon one forever.

Some astrologers think that different "natives" resonate more strongly to one house system or another. You have to start with horoscopes of people you know really well (with accurate birth times) and then run through different systems to see which matches them the best.

Ditto for your astrological interpretations. You may feel that you get a better grasp as an astrologer with one system or another.

I prefer Placidus, but if I want more detail on a chart I will try several house systems, including whole sign. This is especially true for high-latitude births.

I am doing my best now to read up on Hellenistic astrologers and am not convinced that the whole sign system was ubiquitous in their work, but that's a topic for another thread.

5
Waybread,

Thanks for suggesting to not use simply one method. I prefer Placidus, I know many who feel it is not *real* using quadrant-based systems, rather preferring the simplicity and elegance of whole-sign, but I just don't like where whole-sign puts all my planets. That may seem a bit trivial to complain about, but I don't have any 6th/8th/12th house issues and all five of my regular planets get put in one of those (excluding the Sun and Moon, which are in the 7th and 10th, respectively). But the thought still persists. I believe Bonatti may have used both quadrant-based and whole-signs, complimenting each other for different reasons, but as a general rule-of-thumb for my own interpretation of my own chart I believe Placidus works better for me. However, I still wonder if it is the most *accurate* for me, or if Placidus can explain things just as well.
Some astrologers think that different "natives" resonate more strongly to one house system or another.
THAT, I have not heard of. Perhaps because of birth location, maybe? I advocate Placidus because it's great for time and location based upon where YOU were born. The 66+ latitude degrees still pose a problem for it, but for the people who used Placidus back in the day, I'm fairly certain none of them lived above that limit, so I don't think it was really an issue for them. Past that line, though, I would use whole-sign.
I am doing my best now to read up on Hellenistic astrologers and am not convinced that the whole sign system was ubiquitous in their work
Understood about being a different topic, but I am rather interested in this, seeing as I was just reading a Bonatti book (which I believe I mentioned earlier) regarding perhaps a lost in translation view of using whole-signs and quadrant houses back in the old days. Would you mind sharing anything you've found regarding that?

It's truly strange because I can agree with much of what both house systems have to offer. For Saturn to be in the 12th house for whole-signs for me, as well as my cluster of planets in the 8th...I am not *that* much of a hermit, nor am I *that* grievous of mind. So it's kind of a tough call. Saturn positioned in the 11th house -- older friends, among other things, I can certainly agree with, and the cluster in the 7th house simply seems to me to fit me more.

Obviously though, I realize reading one's own chart requires a tremendous amount of objectivity, and I know I am missing many, many things in these big equations.

6
At present I am trying to read through the major English-translation works in Hellenistic astrology. See if you can find the article by Robert Schmidt, "The Facets of Fate," The Mountain Astrologer, Dec. 22, 2008. I think it's on-line.

Although he's pretty committed to the ubiquity of whole signs for topics and specific areas of one's life, Schmidt argues that a "dynamical" house system was used to assess a planet's strength. Essentially planets were deemed strongest at an angle, with the cadent house being weakest. Because this technique had no necessary reference to signs, probably the ancients used Porphyry houses. Similarly, the Greeks had "good and bad" houses based on their relationship to the ascendant house, but these had no necessary relationship to signs.

I have to say that I haven't seen overpowering evidence that the ancients used whole signs consistently-- it is what mathematicians would call an "elegant" solution because it is so simple. But actually, you can use ancient astrologers' techniques with other house systems, so far as I can make out; and there are some puzzling statements in some of the early authors that don't make sense for whole sign houses.

7
waybread wrote:Although he's pretty committed to the ubiquity of whole signs for topics and specific areas of one's life, Schmidt argues that a "dynamical" house system was used to assess a planet's strength.
I've read this quite often in the last few years, it seems a bit of a trend.

Why couldn't a planet's strength be indicated by the same house (or reference) system as the one used for topics?

8
The confusion between house systems has been traced to a misunderstanding of the purposes of those house systems. Different systems had different uses and were not meant to be combined:

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

Whole signs were used for topics primarily whereas the trisections of angles were used for gauging strength. Later on we see in Valens that he sometimes took the MC to give signs for praxis in the same way the 10th topical division was used (suggesting that one was to use the one that gave the greater testimonies). Each chart may be different then if this is the case.
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

9
waybread wrote:...
I have to say that I haven't seen overpowering evidence that the ancients used whole signs consistently-- it is what mathematicians would call an "elegant" solution because it is so simple. ...
"Elegance" in such contexts means "as simple as possible, but no simpler". Whether that encompasses whole signs is an "orthogonal" issue in "mathspeak".

- Ed

10
zoidsoft wrote:http://www.astrology-x-files.com/houses ... ouses.html

Whole signs were used for topics primarily whereas the trisections of angles were used for gauging strength.
the Schmidt article wrote:Ptolemy is regarded as the author of a special equal house division that begins five degrees above the Ascendant, and it is now widely assumed that this was his preferred system. However, three things need to be pointed out here. First of all, prior to Book III, chapter 11, the discussion of length of life, there is no reason to believe that Ptolemy regards the Horoskopos, Midheaven, etc., as anything other than whole-sign houses.
As far as I've been able to understand Ptolemy, it seems quite acceptable that Ptolemy did mean to use equal house system starting at Asc-5?. Perhaps Ptolemy rather introduced the system as being more precise than the whole sign system.

No offence meant to Schmidt but are there other translating authors who disagree with him and see it differently or do they agree?

I've been looking around on the internet and here's something of Chris Brennan:
Chris Brennan wrote:However, it appears to me (and probably Schmidt at this point as well) that it is not so much that the Hellenistic astrologers were using whole sign houses in order to assign topics (i.e. health, finances, siblings, parents, etc.) and quadrant houses in order to determine angularity, but rather that in almost every area of chart delineation whole sign houses were used in order to determine both topics and strength (angularity), except in the length of life treatment, which is where the Hellenistic astrologers usually tended to introduce the quadrant systems. This effectively means that unless you are working with the length of life technique, you are using whole sign houses virtually 100% of the time. Unfortunately, this caused quite a bit of confusion in the later Medieval tradition, which is what eventually led to the plethora of different house systems that were introduced.
source: http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2009 ... h-project/ I find Brennan's view more convincing.
waybread wrote:Some astrologers think that different "natives" resonate more strongly to one house system or another. You have to start with horoscopes of people you know really well (with accurate birth times) and then run through different systems to see which matches them the best.
I wonder where this idea originated. I think it developed as soon as more house systems were available.

11
One of the theoretical ideas behind the idea of house division is the twofold meaning of the word "kentron" which can be translated as a "pivot" (around which something turns) or a goad (as in a cattle prod). Schmidt has associated the topical houses with the first meaning of the word which can mean a "center of activity" and dynamical divisions with the latter meaning "goad to action".

In other words, a planet can be in a center of activity, but not particularly motivated (if 10th house topic for instance, but not that close to the MC); or vice versa a planet can be declining (say 9th house which is not a "center of activity") but be highly motivated (a planet conjunct the MC in the 9th).

One of the interesting things is that the cadent places are said to be "metacosmios" which means between worlds. Implied in this is the idea that to be "centered" upon this world is to have focus in angular places or places that are coming into being (as opposed to passing away). Years ago a baseball analogy was proposed (maybe by Chuck Bucek or Dave Stricker) where it was said that the angles are "at bat" and the post ascensions (succedent) are "on deck" and the cadent places are "struck out" or on base. The decisions are made in the angles most focused here in the world and the things that are coming are in succeedent places, but the things that are not that focused in the world are cadent and potentially passing away. The mind is capable of being somewhere other than "the present" as is the case with the 9th (dreams, visions and philosophy) and 3rd. The 6th is a place of illness which indicates not being fully present in health in the physical world and the 12th is similarly so.

As such the angles represents a cross-hair (4 directions) where the 3 dimensional soul is most centered in focus (Aristotle says that a minimum of 3 dimensions is required for the soul to manifest). These create 12. Schmidt said something similar years ago but not quite in the same way and I'm bringing in the idea that the cross hairs of the angles represents our spiritual/physical orientation as if we are in a cube. The idea of a "cube" is based upon Schmidt's ideas on spear bearing as defined in his translation of Antiochus. This is the way I currently see the issue of houses. The below links are for those not familiar with Aristotle's take on the soul and material manifestation in the world.

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/soul.2.ii.html
http://www.fordham.edu/gsas/phil/klima/bodysoul.htm
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

12
Eddy wrote:No offence meant to Schmidt but are there other translating authors who disagree with him and see it differently or do they agree?
I'm sure that you will find all kinds of opinions in all areas of astrology. That was my problem in the early days reading the translations because there were as many different opinions as there were authors so instead of concentrating on the differences and who had more integrity to side against, I looked at what was the same and what might be the philosophical reasons for these positions. Schmidt made a breakthrough in realizing that many astrological ideas are composite constructs made up of more than one astrological variable and in this way was able to unravel the differences between some of the apparent contradictions between authors. This is why it is so important to become familiar with philosophy when dealing with astrological issues because it will help to keep integrity in your thinking.
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC