46
Hi Tarnia,

I may have misunderstood you. At first I took your ?Until some astrologers commit themselves to a few sessions in the lab . . .? to be a nasty pointed remark, but I may have been wrong. If so, I do apologize. :?

47
Kirk wrote:Hi Tarnia,

I may have misunderstood you. At first I took your ?Until some astrologers commit themselves to a few sessions in the lab . . .? to be a nasty pointed remark, but I may have been wrong. If so, I do apologize. :?

Pointed in so much as it was matter of fact, albeit many astrologers dislike the idea of objective reality, but not nasty as far as I can see.

48
Tom wrote:
As a 'modern' astrologer I'm not sympathetic to this fuzzy 5 degree notion or the idea that a planet can ''work'' in both houses.
We run into this a lot because the modern idea is that the house begins with the cusp and nowhere else, it has never been any different, and therefore the five degree rule means the planet works in both houses or only works in the next house. This is incorrect. The idea is that the house begins five degrees before the cusp. So 4th cusp has 20 Aries, the 4th house begins at 15 Aries. A planet at 16 Aries is not in the third, but rather is in the 4th house. The cusp is the most sensitive point, not the beginning. When we enter a home we do so through the door. The most important point in the home is not the doorway. It is farther inside, but when we walk through the door we are in the home.

The word "cusp" does not mean "beginning" in any language. It comes from a Latin term, "cuspis" that referred to the tip of a sword. That is where the energy of the sword is focused. A cusp in an astrological house is the same thing - a sensitive point. That is why the word was chosen and not some word for "beginning." Therefore, the earliest writers that this term may have believed the house began other than at the cusp, and since it is not logical that it could begin after the cusp, it must begin before it. Whatever this is, it is not fuzzy.

We can accept the idea or reject it, but we need to understand it correctly first.

Tom
That`s interesting. So if my ascendant cusp is at 2? of Aries does that mean my ascendant is actually 27? of Pisces?

thanks

49
The 5? rule only pertains to house-cusps, not to sign-barriers. A signs ends at 29?59'; the next sign starts at 0?0'.
So your ascendant is in the sign it is in. A planet at 29?55 of a sign, IS in that sign and not in the next.
(edit) Or more in relation to your example, I should say that the 5? rule only works in the sign the cusp itself is in.
So Aries-asc it is for you. If you were to have a planet at 29/55 Pisces, that would still remain in the 12th as well, because (at least in the traditional approach) the sign-boundary works as a barrier.
Herman

http://www.hervaro.be

50
Here's something else to consider: a planet 5 or less degrees away from the cusp of a house is in fact about to fall further away from that house and into the preceding house by virtue of the fact that the houses themselves are moving much faster than the planet. Ergo, within minutes the planet will in fact be more firmly ensconced in the preceding house which it is presumed to have already left. :-?

Tara

51
Tom wrote:
Ptolemy does not mention that the rule of 5 degrees does not apply when the sign changes:
If in fact Ptolemy used whole sign houses, he would not have mentioned this as the house and the sign are one and the same. However, if he did use whole sign houses, he is saying that at 25 degrees of a sign the planet should be read as if it were in the next sign. That never made sense to me, and I still wonder, despite Schmidt's work and the work of others, if Ptolemy used whole signs.

[quote
From the Greek words that he used in reference to what appear to be houses.

52
Tara wrote:Here's something else to consider: a planet 5 or less degrees away from the cusp of a house is in fact about to fall further away from that house and into the preceding house by virtue of the fact that the houses themselves are moving much faster than the planet. Ergo, within minutes the planet will in fact be more firmly ensconced in the preceding house which it is presumed to have already left. :-?

Tara
now I`m confused :-?

54
Ed F wrote:
Now I'm confused
Diurnal motion of points on the celestial sphere is clockwise through the houses.
indeed, which makes me wonder what is in reality the strongest point of a house-maybe its end?

55
What happens in reality, as the world turns, is that planets within 5* of a house cusp are about to lose their foothold in that house as its cusp falls further and further away from them. It's like planets at the cusp of a house are hanging on by its shirt tails rather than preparing to enter that house. In reality that planet has just spent the last approximately 2 hours in that house and is now leaving it.

It only works to see planets approaching the cusp of a house as entering that house if we see the house cusps as fixed once the moment of astrology has occurred, while continuing to accord movement to the planets.

I continue in practice to view planets on house cusps as having entered that house already and it seems to be a reliable assumption, particularly in horary. I would just love to be able to understand how to integrate the reality of the transiting house cusps (the rotation of the earth) into the practice of assigning planets approaching house cusps to the next house. Maybe it's something to do with diurnal vs zodiacal movement?

Tara

56
Hi dmause,

Actually not sure Ptolemy used "houses" at all; he uses a sort of quadrant system for the length of life calculation, and then uses signs for the various topics, but it much more focused on the planets. In fact, the planets are often used to determine the signs that are used, as in the chapter about the parents.
dmause wrote: If in fact Ptolemy used whole sign houses, he would not have mentioned this as the house and the sign are one and the same. However, if he did use whole sign houses, he is saying that at 25 degrees of a sign the planet should be read as if it were in the next sign. That never made sense to me, and I still wonder, despite Schmidt's work and the work of others, if Ptolemy used whole signs.
Gabe