16
Mark wrote:Konrad wrote:
Yes Mark, this is something I have seen too and it is something which interests me greatly though, I must confess I find whole-sign to accurately describe the situation more clearly in both horary and natal.
I agree on natal but not horary. I would use WS predominantly for natal but probably reverse that for horary. Horary seems to rely more than natal on planetary strength. Interestingly, several other advocates of WS here were reporting the same experience in a recent thread. My exlpanation for this apparent contradiction is that horary is often more 'fated' while natal allows more scope for free will.

Incidentally, I seem to recall the late hellenistic author Rhetorius (The Compendium) seems to be using WS and quadrant too.

Mark
Yes, I had heard of Rhetorius too, though I have not studied anything he has done other than through Masha'allah.

As for Horary, you still have to rely on planetary placement and the house cusps or signs as indicators of which planets to use and those can be vastly different if the MC is in the 9th sign for example.

17
Hi Korad,

I think you replied before I finished editing my last post!
As for Horary, you still have to rely on planetary placement and the house cusps or signs as indicators of which planets to use and those can be vastly different if the MC is in the 9th sign for example.
Fair enough. I am not necessarily rejecting assigning topics by WS in horary. However, one can look at this the other way too. I would give a very different slant on a planet in the WS 7th above or below the horizon. Falling in say the Porphyry 6th it has sunk below the horizon. That is not just a choice of house systems. It concerns astrology reflecting the visible sky. Naturally, the sect of the planet would be a significant factor too.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

18
Mark wrote:Hi Korad,

I think you replied before I finished editing my post!
As for Horary, you still have to rely on planetary placement and the house cusps or signs as indicators of which planets to use and those can be vastly different if the MC is in the 9th sign for example.
Fair enough. However, one can look at this the other way too. I would give a very different slant on a planet in the WS 7th above or below the horizon. Falling in say the Porphyry 6th it has sunk below the horizon. That is not just a choice of house systems. It concerns astrology reflecting the visible sky.

Mark
Yes and this is my problem too. If a planet is on the MC, it has reached its highest point in the visible sky but it could be in the 12th whole-sign, how do we rectify this? My initial thought would be to reject whole-sign but both my natal work and horary work has become so much sharper since I changed to it. This tells me there is for sure something to it but the visible sky still rankles me a bit which is why Masha'allah so interests me. Perhaps though, the rankling about the real sky could stem from my modern programming of having to be able to touch something for it to be real? Maybe the ideals of whole sign are the driving force behind our imperfect existence?

19
Konrad wrote:
Yes and this is my problem too. If a planet is on the MC, it has reached its highest point in the visible sky but it could be in the 12th whole-sign, how do we rectify this?
I commented before on this idea of delineating the MC by house placement. Its proposed by Robert Hand in his book on whole sign houses. Does this mean people in northern latitudes such as here in Scotland have to accept (in natal terms) proportionaly more 12th house type lives? :roll: If you worked in northern Russia or Canada there would be a lot of 12th house MC charts by WS!
Perhaps though, the rankling about the real sky could stem from my modern programming of having to be able to touch something for it to be real?
mmm tell that to the ancient Babylonians, Egyptians, Chinese and Mayans. :) If anything they gave far greater weight to visual astrology than the more symbolic abstract astrology based on derived points like lots. Ptolemy, Kepler and Morin are examples of later astrologers who preferred the tangible over the purely symbolic.
Maybe the ideals of whole sign are the driving force behind our imperfect existence?
Perhaps. Undeniably we live in the imperfect, unequal sub-lunar realm! :D

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

20
Hello,

Based on my experience, my natal delineations get far better results with WS house (which I use almost exclusively in natal) so much so that I decided at one point to apply it to horary. However, it didn't work. Somehow, quadrant house system seems to work better for me in horary chart (though the WS house does contribute to the horary delineation).

One peculiar thing is that in thought interpretation (reading horary to discern the true intentions of the querent), the WS seems to work better but in horary proper (Lilly's style), the quadrant house system is better. I must say that I have yet much to research on this matter.

A far fetched theory:
I find that using WS house is like looking to the ideal Platonic forms. In the world of being (Platonic world of forms) everything is perfect and unchanging. The closest we could get to this world is the furthest away what we could observe i.e. the realms of the fixed stars and/or the zodiac. In this perfect world of being (which is outside the world of becoming in where we reside), nothing gets stretched or crooked, all signs are of the same size and therefore, the house should be also imitating this. We simply find the origin point (the rising ecliptic degree) and then simply count the signs. Platonics would say that this is what is meant to occur in this realm of becoming (this world). No matter how different the world of being (ideal, perfect world of Plato) is from the "real" world i.e. this world of becoming, the world of becoming is trying to imitate the world of being as best they can albeit with imperfections. The ideal sun does revolve around the earth in 360 days because 360 is the multiplication of the square of the first perfect number (6x6) and the Pythagorean sacred number 10 of completion. However, in the world of becoming, it is 365.2422 days (due to the imperfection of this world) but the sun is working "hard" to achive perfection as best he can.

Of course, as an astrologer we try to predict things that change. A moment's reflection tells us that some things change a lot while others seem resistant to change (they do change but the rate of change is very small). I am imagining that the ancient astrologers associate those topics that do not change much to the WS house (our natal potentials). Later astrologers then associate things that do change much to the quadrant house (it's probably one of their ways to predict things that change much). It is interesting to see that the calculation of length of life involves the quadrant house system because in the world of becoming (which is also known as the world of generation and corruption), death is the paragon of corruption which should somehow accomodate the quadrant house system. Perhaps this is also why horary seems to work better with quadrant house system because the queries usually are more mundane (where's that cat of mine) which are fleeting events. Having said this, some horary questions seem to work well with WS house system - maybe because the queries are related to things that do not change as much!
Last edited by astrojin on Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

21
astrojin wrote:A far fetched theory: ...Perhaps this is also why horary seems to work better with quadrant house system because the queries usually are more mundane (where's that cat of mine) which are fleeting events. Having said this, some horary questions seem to work well with WS house system - maybe because the queries are related to things that do not change as much!
I'm too, under the exact same impression.
Paulo Felipe Noronha

22
Thanks Astrojin,

Yet another beautiful post from you! I like the way you brought in Platonic philosohy. In essence we can see the factor of time as fundamental with the conditions of a horary necessarily more ephemeral than that of a nativity. I also think the speed of events in a horary means there is often less time to exercise free will as external conditions have often predetermined an outcome before the question is even asked. That is what I meant when I stated horary was more 'fated' than natal astrology.

Incidentally, I have opened another thread on in mundo aspects. It seems this is another topic were we have a split between an idealized (zodiacal) and in mundo approach. It is an interesting contrast to the Whole Sign/Quadrant house debate since it seems we tend to favour a zodiacal/ idealized approach to aspects today. In contrast mundane or in mundo aspects are rather an exotic in modern astrology. However, they clearly seem to have been recognized in ancient astrology.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6506

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

23
Hello Mark,
Thanx for your remark!

Quote
That is what I meant when I stated horary was more 'fated' than natal astrology.
A religious person told me that when you ask an astrologer (or anyone with equal profession) i.e. making a horary inquiry, you have already surrendered your free will to "fate" (or at least much of it). I don't really know how to respond to this. He seems to believe that it is different when you look to natal astrology because they represent natal potentials of which free will can still be exercised (in making the many general indications in the natal chart more specific through the exercise of free will) although he also says that there is a certain degree of "fate" associated with natal indications!