Does anyone here *combine* Whole Sign and quadrant systems?

RohanMenon

Something that seems true in my *experience* (only! I'm *not* an astrological theoretician) is , from analyzing transits that seem to affect me) that specific 'topics' (related to specific houses) seem to *begin* to be activated when the transiting planet enters the corresponding sign (so WSH), but *peak*/manifest when they hit the quadrant house based House cusps.

I might be imagining things, but it seems to be that house significances work with Whole Sign house but peak/ebb seems to work with quadrant houses. so for 'topics' use the former, but for *timing* use the latter. Anyone know of any theory that matches this (or anything like this)?
 

Barleywine

I haven't worked with it in this way, but I have explored the significance of the 15th degree of a sign being a sensitive point, in keeping with the Cosmobiologist's view that only the "hard" angles (45, 90, 135, 180) have any outward expression. A long time ago, before I knew the Greeks had already done it, my brother and I worked up an 8-segment house arrangement that used the concept of 15 degrees of fixity as the intermediate cusps.
 

Minderwiz

Some prediction techniques require the use of quadrant houses, an obvious one is Primary Directions. This grew out of the Hellenistic idea that crisis points in life could be identified, including the likely point of death.

Quadrant houses allow the power of the planet - the ability and liklihood that action will occur, that corresponds to an angular planet and is less likely to correspond with a succeedent or cadent planet. There's good evidence to support this, even down to the transits that might trigger the predicted event. I certainly tried this and found it useful, though I must admit that Zodiacal Releasing is now my preferred prediction method.

The key to usage is, I think, based on the need to predict, which in turn requires some approach to timing techniques. Simply to describe or analyse the nature of a nativity is less dynamic and WSH seem to do it best. Of course it's perfectly possible to predict with WSH, using Time Lords, or to describe and analyise a nativity with Quadrant Houses. But I've become more and more conviced that the latter is not in anyway boosted by using quadrant houses, indeed, if anything its weakened.

Assessing powerful planets as such, has always been based on angularity as the key characteristic. Quadrant Houses excel in that. And both approaches have been part of Western Astrology, virtually from the beginning.

When you get to Valens Book III you'll find him using quadrant houses to make predictions (Length of Life), yet he clearly uses WSH for topics; in doing that he was typical of Astrologers of his time. Both systems were used but with different aims in mind and there's no conflict between them if this is borne in mind.

One issue that is worth investigating, is whether there is a 'best' system of quadrant houses for this purpose. I know you use Placidus cusps, Valens used the system that we now call Porphry, and later Rhetoriusu the Egyptian, around the turn of the sixth Century CE, describes a system that later was republished by Al-Qabisi and became known under his latinised name as Alcabitius. The Medieval period produced Placidus and Regiomontanus, both of which existed long before they became associated with the names they now bear. There are, of course other systems, of quadrant houses, the most recent, I think, is Koch.

There are slight differences in the house cusps between these, perhaps most with Porphyry, a simple trisection of the arc from ASC to MC. So does one system of quadrant houses consistently and univesally out-perform the others, on your sensitive point(s)?

Technically there are good reasons for adopting Placidus, if you intend to try Primary Directions. though sadly the two Astrologers you are most likely to test are Lilly and Morin, who both used Regiomontanus. Consequently that was the system I tried and it seemed to work quite well.
 

RohanMenon

Thanks Barleywine, Minderwiz

I'm slowly coming around to the idea of Whole Sign Houses for topics, Placidus cusps for manifestation potential. We'll see how it goes. In my horoscope there are only marginal changes between Regiomontanus and Placidus, so I think this part should be fine
 

Minderwiz

I'm slowly coming around to the idea of Whole Sign Houses for topics, Placidus cusps for manifestation potential. We'll see how it goes. In my horoscope there are only marginal changes between Regiomontanus and Placidus, so I think this part should be fine

I've used both Regiomontanus and Placidus, and as you say, the changes are marginal between the two. My error, in so far as there was an error, was in moving away from Placidus because it was used by Modern Astrologers, and in particular, the pyschobabble crowd. In fact it predates Placido di Tito, by some way, and is possibly around the same age as Alcabitius (according to Deb Houlding).

The need for house tables seems to be the operative issue in deciding house systems in the past, and it's probably why Lilly and Morin kept to Regiomontanus and why Placidus was adopted in the mid to late nineteenth Century.

The problem with WSH is the Astronomic MC, which can fluctuate between the eleventh and ninth houses. Later Hellenistic Astrologers actually commented on its frequencey in the eleventh house by WSH)which added to the strength of the eleventh in their eyes. However there's no compelling reason why the Astronomic MC should be a house cusp, rather than just a point, like the Lot of Fortune or the other Lots (though Fortune was used as the Ascendant,for the Circle of Athla).

On the other hand, quadrant systems break down at extreme latitudes, and of these Porphry fares best (though is by no means immune to the failure).
 

RohanMenon

When you get to Valens Book III you'll find him using quadrant houses to make predictions (Length of Life), yet he clearly uses WSH for topics; in doing that he was typical of Astrologers of his time. Both systems were used but with different aims in mind and there's no conflict between them if this is borne in mind.

This is *very* encouraging, since it validates my personal observations.

I was talking to a vedic astrologer, and they apparently do something like this as well, with two distinct charts (rashi- which is the WSH, of course using Sidereal, so ayanamsha etc, and bhava, which is apparently about how much 'strength' the potentials promised in the WSH chart have to manifest, or not)

An 'easy way' of creating the latter (bhava/strength) chart seems to be by taking 15 degrees on each side of the Ascendant, - so the ascendant is the 'strongest' point in the first house, and then counting 30 degrees for each house. So the 'strongest' point of each house comes in the centre.

There are other ways [1] to create this chart, some of which result in unequal 'strength measurement houses', but this seems to be the most commonly used one.

At least that is how I understood it, it was a brief conversation. I could have got it completely wrong.

Details of chart construction aside, I found it interesting that the *concept* of two different charts for 'topics' and 'strength' seems to be a commonly used technique (even in modern times) in Vedic. I personally have no doubt that it reflects an original technique from the Hellenistic roots, which was conveyed to India. As you say, Valens seems to have done something similar as a matter of course for prediction/timing. (though I'm sure the differences in how the 'strength' chart is cast may vary)

My error, in so far as there was an error, was in moving away from Placidus because it was used by Modern Astrologers, and in particular, the pyschobabble crowd.

Lol I know exactly what you speak of.

The problem with WSH is the Astronomic MC, which can fluctuate between the eleventh and ninth houses. Later Hellenistic Astrologers actually commented on its frequencey in the eleventh house by WSH)which added to the strength of the eleventh in their eyes.

Very interesting.

However there's no compelling reason why the Astronomic MC should be a house cusp, rather than just a point, like the Lot of Fortune or the other Lots (though Fortune was used as the Ascendant,for the Circle of Athla).

Very interesting. The Vedic " houses are all 30 degrees, with the first house having 15 degrees centred around the ascendant" idea might work here, *if* there is a corresponding system (Equal Houses? just guessing) in traditional Western astrology. Then MC is just a "point of power", which can land in any place/house, as you point out, and probably emphasises that WSH topics as having particular power in the native's life.

I think the Vedic system works because it was 'customised' for places close to the equator. Might be interesting to know if authors other than Valens used the 'two chart' system - 1 for topics, 1 for manifestations potential and/or timing.

Hmm. Much to think about. Thanks Minderwiz, for the thought provoking ideas! I'm glad to see that the idea of two systems - one for topics and one for strength, which I derived purely experientially is not as far out as I originally thought. At least I'm not completely imagining things

[1] for e.g, dividing ascendant to MC into 3 .equal pieces, likewise MC to DESC, I didn't get into the details of the calculation, so don't know if Ascendant is cusp or middle of 1st house etc
 

Minderwiz

There are other ways [1] to create this chart, some of which result in unequal 'strength measurement houses', but this seems to be the most commonly used one.

At least that is how I understood it, it was a brief conversation. I could have got it completely wrong.

Details of chart construction aside, I found it interesting that the *concept* of two different charts for 'topics' and 'strength' seems to be a commonly used technique (even in modern times) in Vedic. I personally have no doubt that it reflects an original technique from the Hellenistic roots, which was conveyed to India. As you say, Valens seems to have done something similar as a matter of course for prediction/timing. (though I'm sure the differences in how the 'strength' chart is cast may vary



[1] for e.g, dividing ascendant to MC into 3 .equal pieces, likewise MC to DESC, I didn't get into the details of the calculation, so don't know if Ascendant is cusp or middle of 1st house etc


Interesting! If they took the distance from the point of the Ascendant t the point of the MC and trisected it, they have the start of a Porphyry chart, which is early Hellenistic. Even if the alculation is not exactly the same, Valens is very clear on what he's doing but many other explanations were obscure) it seems more evidence for the Hellenistic basis of much of Vedic Astrology.
 

RohanMenon

So my idea wasn't original at all.

Even within the Western/Arab Tradition, (which is great! I have no intention of creating new theories. I am very happy that there is a tradition that matches my personal experience)

"If we allow signs to signify topics, but the quadrant divisions to indicate something like 'power' , then the problem is largely solved:

all planets in the rising sign will indicate first house matters , and will be central to life because of it, but they might be weak in power even if they are central to life.

Consider arthritis; some arthritis might always be on one's mind (in the rising sign), but might never be debilitating or really problematic (cadent in power) but other arthritis might be on ones mind (in the rising sign) but very painful and distracting (angular in power).

Other planets and signs could work in the same way: signs for topics, quadrant divisions for intensity.''

Introductions to Traditional Astrology: Abu Ma’shar and Al-Qabasi by Benjamin Dykes (2010), page 19

This is very close to what I "derived" from personal experience.
Delighted!