Hi all,

Often I face the following dilemma in predictive work.
I usually have a given chart in both placidus and whole sign houses in front of me.

According to WS doctrine, once a planet ingresses into a new sign it would activate the house cusp which falls on top of that sign.
In WS it is as if it ingresses into a new house.

Contrarily, with placidus, only when a planet comes within a partile orb of a house cusp, these house topics would become activated (and usually later).

Through the years I tried to observe which method is more accurate, but wasn't able to reach a decisive conclusion, as both approaches seem to have an effect.

What do you think?

Dima Gur wrote:Hi all,

Often I face the following dilemma in predictive work.
I usually have a given chart in both placidus and whole sign houses in front of me.

According to WS doctrine, once a planet ingresses into a new sign it would activate the house cusp which falls on top of that sign.
In WS it is as if it ingresses into a new house.

Contrarily, with placidus, only when a planet comes within a partile orb of a house cusp, these house topics would become activated (and usually later).

Through the years I tried to observe which method is more accurate, but wasn't able to reach a decisive conclusion, as both approaches seem to have an effect.

What do you think?

I think that both could have an effect.

My go-to method is Equal Houses, but I am open to the possibility that other methods might render interesting results as well.

Since Pluto just entered Aquarius, thus a new house in everyone's chart according to the WSH perspective, this should give interested astrologers plenty of opportunities to investigate this topic.

Thanks Michael,
I'd be happy to hear other forum members share their views and opinions on this topic, as well.

Dima Gur,

According to WS doctrine, once a planet ingresses into a new sign it would activate the house cusp which falls on top of that sign.
In WS it is as if it ingresses into a new house.

By WS, it does not activate a house cusp, it gives a color to the House in that sign and the Ruler of that sign.
Take for example the Moon, easier to track any other day. If you have a transit to Mercury and the same day, the Moon is entering Gemini or Virgo or is travelling in your 3rd or 6th House, the Moon is a trigger to your transit to Mercury. And also the natal House of Mercury and the Houses it rules.
In the case of Pluto entering in Aquarius, it will give a color to Saturn and whatever it rules in your chart. Hindered or slow development, transformation through separation. Whatever we are used to rely on in our life, governments, authority figures, structures, traditions are going to be uprooted permanently (Pluto is telling us it's not coming back).

If you use a House system, Placidus you mention, the House cusp should be treated the same way as if you were looking at a transit to a natal planet. Do this simple test. Check the transits to your 2nd House cusp over a month period. Conjunction, sextile, square, trine, opposition (you can add the semi-square, sesqui-quadrate, inconjunct) and check the movement of your transactions (in and out) as the Moon indicates changes. You will be surprised of what you find out. Should you find another planet involved at the same time, this will be felt even more strongly.

playing devils advocate here...

sidereal zodiac - pluto is still in capricorn...

outer planets are less relevant, unless they hit onto a particular part of the chart - connected directly to a planet in a persons chart, or more abstractly - hitting a house cusp which means - hitting onto the ascendant degree in equal house system.... i have never personally found placidius houses relevant, but that is just me and robert hand, lol... many others seem to take a different view..

i think with regard to pluto, unless described as mentioned above - is a dumb note... cheers

outer planets are less relevant, unless they hit onto a particular part of the chart - connected directly to a planet in a persons chart, or more abstractly - hitting a house cusp which means - hitting onto the ascendant degree in equal house system...

Hitting the ASC degree in equal house system = looking at the aspects to the ASC (30, 60, 90... and so on)
Doing the same with Placidus or to be more precise with Topocentric, you will find evidences, nothing abstract James.

i have never personally found placidius houses relevant, but that is just me and robert hand, lol..

Can you provide examples when you looked at Placidus and did not find anything relevant?

what i have found over the course of my life and studies in astrology, is people/astrologers will see what they want to see.. they will rationalize and justify it any number of ways too... i believe i am less inclined this way, although i suffer from this fallacy from time to time too and have to constantly challenge myself..

cheers
james

My approach
I don't believe anything at first until it shows up consistently. Notice that I did not say all the time here.
We, as astrologers have a very bad tracking record. But we are very good at 'See, I told you' or 'I am not surprised' while we were looking at our cell phone during the parade.
Imagine the astrologer of the king in the Middle Age 'According to Ptolemy...'
No, I want to know what you can tell me about my kingdom this year.
Over the years, I have acquired some certainties and am left with a lot of questions.
But one thing I am not afraid of is to make 'predictions' like in Horary Astrology.
It's free, I am not being paid to do it. And it is the best way to learn. You derail, you are off track. No problem. Next time you will be better at it.

And I am working very hard to disprove astrology.

this is a saying from tao teh ching that i like.

the further you go, the less you know...

seems to apply in a lot of instances, and certainly is in line with my thinking..

hindsight astrology... that is how i refer to it... and hindsight astrology is 20/20 lol...

James M:
Which house system/s you do use?
Koch?

hi dima

thanks for asking... it is complicated... i first started off with placidus - it was what many new astrologers did in the 70's... then i read a book by robert pelletier maybe around 1980 called 'planets in houses' which started me off on a path of equal houses... he was influenced by indian astrology... the idea was the cusp of the equal houses were like the crest of a wave... that is a short history on how i got here...

but to answer your question more directly.. i see the issue of houses as the byproduct of astrologers trying to integrate two different axis - the ascendant axis and the midheaven axis... i am not convinced of the concept of 12 houses... i can see the concept of 2 houses - what is above and below the ascendant axis... this makes sense to me and why i like the emphasis hellenistic astrology puts on the sun and moon in this context... sun is strong in a diurnal chart and moon is strong in a nocturnal chart...

i put greater emphasis on the ascendant axis.. there was a time where i was mostly considering a type of cosmobiological take which in many ways doesn't emphasize houses so much as aspects... the aspects off the ascendant degree - opposition to descendant - upper and lower square to 10th and 4th houses - sextile - 3 and 11, trine - 9 and 5... what's missing? 2 and 12 and 6 and 8... this is a different way of coming around to a 12 house system... semisextile and quincunx will get you the 2, 12, 6 and 8... funny enough the cosmobiologists like to emphasize the hard aspects which include the 45-135... but i am getting sidetracked rambling on here...

how to integrate the midheaven axis? i like the idea of the midheaven axis landing in the 9, 10, or 11 most of the time concept.. so i guess that means i like using and thinking of whole sign houses at this point.. in fact - the way i thought of equal house systems, is very much like the way whole sign houses has been pitched... a planet in the same sign has affinity with that sign.. if that sign is on the cusp - those planets have an affinity with that cusp...

so that is a round about way of saying i prefer whole sign houses, but that it is complicated... i understand how the different house systems have been arrived at with different types of ways of emphasizing time and space... i like keeping the celestial pattern of 12 signs in some form of continuity with each other... i like derivative houses for this reason and i like considering sun and moon houses too for these same reasons... i am not fully convinced of the concept of 12 houses... i see the logic in quadrant houses - it emphasizes both axis - ascendant and midheaven in some sort of trade off.. i don't like that trade off and feel the ascendant axis needs greater emphasis...

one more comment.. it seems to me transits to planets in the chart itself are very important. of course how one interprets the planet - what house it is or isn't in, will be a factor in this too.. but just transiting planets to natal planets is a big factor in how the effect of transits impacts a chart.. also a bit of trivia - donna cunningham, an astrologer who passed away a few years ago - relied on nothing but transits to give her a read of the chart..

cheers
james

hey! on a diversionary note - can you comment on the israel thread i shared in the mundane forum? you are in tel aviv and i hear they are still having huge demonstrations in israel.. thanks!

James:
Thanks for the detailed reply, read and re-read some parts a few times over.
I like the open mindedness and the familiarity with different approaches. It does seem to me, though, that once one gets down to do predictive work, one has to settle on this approach or another.
I think the focus on transiting planets aspecting natal planets is basic and yet vital (esp. with conjunctions). Good thing that you've brought this up.


About the Israel thread in the mundane forum, with all of my good intentions, this one is a tough one for me, for several reasons:
1) I know very little as far as Vedic / Sidereal Astrology goes. Not my field of specialty. So I can't reply directly on what you or Stefan wrote over there.
2) This topic is a rather charged topic, here, or for me. My views being diametrically opposed to everything which Netanyahu represents.
3) In my astrological activities in Israel, there's quite a demand for astro-info on Netanyahu and on political stuff. It gets tiresome, at times.
4) No expert on mundane astrology either, plus It's a rather difficult astrological-branch, as far as my attempts at predictions went.
5) Not objective enough to predict anything about Netanyahu [see point 2.], so I guess I'd rather pass
(*) If on the other hand you want to ask something more specific about the situation here or astrology related to it, feel free of course.