House Systems

littleneptune

I was wondering how other astrologers deal with the subject of house systems. I have never been able to fully embrace any house system due to the lack of consensus about which system is best. I can't really accept the idea that they're ALL valid in their own way, so up to now I've pretty much abandoned house systems and use planets, signs and aspects for my work. Does everyone here basically accept Placidus or Koch on faith, or is there any new evidence of a better house system? Equal seems most fair, but the problem of the MC not being on the 10th cusp is confusing. Every time I start researching this, I give up due to the lack of real evidence for any of them!
 

AquarianGoddess

There are a few books out on the subject in fact I believe Lois Rodden has written one of them. You may want to check the online sites that sell astrology books.

I use Placidius and have for about 100 years. I've tried the others and always go back to my favorite. My astrologer friend swears by Kock and he uses only that system, some others use Equal.

If you would like to search the archives (here), there was a similar post a few months ago, or so.

AG
 

Astraea

Whole Sign Houses

Littleneptune, you might want to check out the whole sign house system, used by classical Greek astrologers and such excellent modern practitioners as Robert Hand, Robert Zoller, Joseph Crane, and many others. This system is essentially a wheel within a wheel: the Ascendant and MC are important points, but they do not represent house cusps; rather, 0 degrees of every sign is the cusp of each house, meaning that the entire sign is associated with the affairs of any given house. This differs from the equal house system, in which the Ascendant degree determines the cusps of all the houses.

For example, for a chart with an Ascendant of 15 degrees Libra, the Ascendant would fall within the first house, but would not be the cusp of that house; rather, 0 degrees Libra would be the cusp of the first house. So the degree on the Ascendant determines the sign of the first house, but not its cusp.

The whole sign system has the advantage that it does not break down at extreme latitudes (meaning that there are no intercepted houses).

There is also nothing wrong with not using houses. Strict cosmobiologists do not use them.
 

Astraea

Here is a link to a fascinating article on the subject of whole-sign houses in classical astrology by one of its leading exponents: http://www.projecthindsight.com/fate.htm

Incidentally, Vedic astrology (also known as Hindu and Jyotish astrology) utilizes whole-sign houses.
 

littleneptune

Bless you AquarianGoddess and Astraea, I'm on it!
 

Lee

Here is a link with a tiny bit of info about a system invented by Dan Lorey in which he uses neither houses nor signs, just angles and the aspects between planets. A book by him is mentioned, and I actually ordered a used copy of the book from Amazon, just 'cause I was curious about the system.

http://www.thezodiac.com/angles.htm

-- Lee :)
 

Minderwiz

A good book on the origins of the Houses is Deborah Houldings - Houses - Temples of the Sky. You can learn more on her web site http://www.skyscript.co.uk/houprob.html in some detail.

I also use Placidus and I've tried several of the others. As part of one of my Astrology courses I did a comparison of the readings for the same person using three different House systems. Essentially they came out much the same - though the emphasis was shifted in some ways.

The main problem with systems like Placidus is that it breaks down near the poles - where you can end up with the same sign on the MC and on the Ascendant. However, in such cases I tend to fall back on the equal house system.

The ancient Full Sign system is quite an interesting one and a useful book which makes implicit use of it is The Astrology of Rising Signs by Carl Sargent
 

dadsnook2000

Houses sometimes, mostly not.

Hi There. I use houses only when doing a natal chart -- and even there I keep it all to a minimum. I start with the angles, ASC and MC, add in the ASC-to-MC arc and project it towards the DSC angle -- where it falls I lable it a Co-Descendant. This mirror-arc position from the MC seems to be a back door into your chart where fate can just walk in and diddle with you. Its not the DSC where we tend to project onto others, but an unwanted "input" area where others intrude on us.
I use the houses only after first evaluating the angles and planets near the angles, and the stronger aspects in the chart. I believe that this planetary energy provides the basic framework that houses and rulerships have to work within. Since much of my work involves precessed Solar Returns (where the angles move forward each day between one Solar Return and the next) I tend to work only with angles. When an angle and transiting or natal planet contact each other both the basic planet/angle meaning and the natal chart meaning (with all of its aspectual and house meanings) come into play -- and only those planets and angles. This simplifies astrology greatly, doing away with sign and house considerations in 90 percent of your chart work. Its radical but highly workable. I like simplicity probably because I first learned mid-points before conventional chart applications. Dave.
 

littleneptune

Dadsnook2000--thanks for your feedback! If you're still out there, could you please clarify what projecting the Asc-to-Mc arc means? I'm not familiar with this term, but is seems a very interesting technique. I'm all for simplifying the chart!
 

dadsnook2000

Mirroring the ASC-to-MC arc.

Let's use the following example: MC at 5 Pisces, ASC at 0 Cancer. The arc is 115 degrees. Projecting this arc from the MC towards the DSC area of the chart, we would end up at 10 Scorpio. I call this a "Co-Descendant." The important point is that this a sensitive as it makes the mid heaven the mid-point between the the Ascendant and a point in the opposite hemasphere. Instead of a point of "personal expression of one's goals" (the ASC-MC arc) it represents a point of "other's expression impact your personal goals." There are a lot of significant "points" in space and time. If you use solar returns I'll share some more with you. Meanwhile explore the Co-DSC point in your chart for 1) transits and progressions, and 2) interaction with other's charts. Let me know what you might find. Dave.