• Which house system – why can’t we all agree? by Paul Cairo

  • Which House System? – Why can’t we all agree?

     Methods of House Division

    Equal House

    Asc marks the start of the 1st house then 30 degree divisions from there around the zodiac.

    MC becomes “free floating”

    Thought to have been widely used in the original Hellenistic tradition but now it appears that it was mistakenly confused with Whole Sign Houses.

    Become more prominent in recent centuries probably due to discontent with the Quadrant House systems.

    Used as the primary system in the Jeff Mayo school (due to Jeff Mayo’s rubbishing of the quadrant systems in his original “teach yourself astrology” book) and also taught “equally” with other systems in the Faculty of Astrological studies.

    Quadrant systems

    Defined by adherence to the “angles” as marking the beginning of the 1, 4, 7 and 10th houses.

    Placidus is the most commonly used house system in modern astrology. The paths drawn for each degree of the ecliptic to move from the IC. to the horizon, and from the horizon to the MC, are trisected to determine the cusps of houses 2, 3,11, and 12. The cusps of houses 8, 9, 5 and 6 are opposite these. The Placidus system is sometimes not defined beyond polar circles (latitudes greater than 66°N or 66°S), because certain degrees are circumpolar (never touch the horizon), and planets falling in them cannot be assigned to houses without extending the system.

    Whole Sign

    In the whole sign house system, the houses are 30° each. The ascendant designates the rising sign, and the first house begins at zero degrees of the sign in which the ascendant falls. The next sign after the ascending sign then becomes the 2nd house, the sign after that the 3rd house, and so on. In other words, each house is wholly filled by one sign. This was the main system used in the Hellenistic tradition of astrology, and is also used in Indian Astrology. It is thought to be the oldest system of house division.

    Hellenistic Astrology

     Hellenistic astrology is the direct ancestor of modern astrology and was properly developed after the conquests of Alexander the Great and the creation of the city of Alexandria in Egypt in 332 BC.

    Alexandria became the intellectual centre of Egypt and was most probably the birth cradle from which fully formed Hellenistic Astrology emerged in the first century BC.

    It derived from a fusion of techniques primarily from the Babylonians (Chaldeans) and the Egyptians within a Greek philosophical and scientific framework and is defined by the use of the Ascendant to create “horoscopic” (time based) individual natal charts.

    4 Tenets of Hellenistic Astrology.-


    Use of Ascendant and creation of Whole Sign Houses.

    Planetary meanings.


    So – WSH’s are one of the original tenets of Hellenistic Astrology. As such they are at the source/ the birth/ the origin of the tradition and so, as with a foundation chart of anything, the relevance continues throughout the lifetime of the system.

    The actual house “delineations” (meanings) have changed through the centuries. We don’t have any surviving texts from the very beginning of the tradition before the first century BC  so we can only speculate on how the houses were originally conceptualised as the tradition coalesced into existence in the first couple of centuries after the creation of the city of Alexandria. We only know how the astrologers of the first century BC were describing the house delineations. If you wish to understand more about how these delineations have evolved over time then it’s worthwhile taking time to listen to Chris Brennan’s excellent podcast covering this topic – “The Astrology Podcast – episode 17”.

    My personal view is that at the origin of the tradition there were no “Houses” as defined later but just a realisation that the signs could be numbered from the Ascendant to give a more “personal” Zodiac. This may then have then developed along the lines of the Egyptian tradition of “decanic” astrology which appears to have assigned certain topics such as livelihood, illness, marriage, children etc. to specific portions (decans) of the diurnal rotation.

    So it may be that we have moved back to the original conceptualisation of the house delineations by the current use of zodiac sign relationships to define these delineations.

    This has occurred in the last century or so with the advent of the so called “12 letter alphabet”.

    I must stress this is only a personal opinion!

    I would also like to say that possibly the WSH’s are the way we see ourselves (they are personal) and the “zodiac” is the “consensual collective” view that the world as a whole has. ie. Sun in Aries – everyone sees you as Sun in Aries but with this Sun in the 12th house you identify personally with Pisces – (internally not externally). So inside you feel Pisces but to the world you express as an Aries sun.

     Summary advocating WSH by Chris Brennan

    original forum posting can be found at- https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=638

    Lets talk about Whole Sign houses, their application to modern astrology, their historical basis, and what this means to the astrological community as a whole.
    It has been shown that the house systems that the vast majority of modern astrologers use today, are not what the founders had originally intended, and in fact it all started due a misinterpretation of several fundamental Hellenistic texts during the transmission of western astrology to the Arabs in the 7th and 8th centuries.

    The system of house division that is used today by most astrologers was originally devised by the Greeks as a way of measuring planetary ‘activity’, or perhaps strength. This system of ‘dynamic division’, where you take the Ascendant and Midheaven as starting points, and then divide the quadrants accordingly, which is similar to our modern idea of house division, is clearly explained by several of the Hellenistic astrologers, including Ptolemy who was not a practicing astrologer, but they were careful to explain that this was a ‘dynamical’ division intended to gauge how “busy” a planet is, as opposed to the ‘topical’ division of the chart which designates the actual areas, or ‘houses’ of the chart.

    Vettius Valens explains a type of ‘dynamical’ division, which would be the equivalent to Porphyry, where the first third of each quadrant, from each of the four angular points, (i.e. the Asc/Dsc, MC/IC) known in modern house division as the angular ‘houses’ (1st, 4th, 7th, 10th) are the most ‘busy’ or active ’houses’. The following third of the quadrant (i.e. 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th) is only ‘moderately active’. And the last third of each quadrant (i.e. 3, 6, 9, 12) is the ‘least active’ of all the divisions.

    So, This is called a ‘dynamical’ division of the chart, because it is a way to gauge planetary activity, or strength.

    BUT, it does not delegate, or signify the areas of life affected by the planetary placements. That’s what the ‘topical’ division of the chart is for, i.e. Whole Sign houses, because that shows what area of life is affected.

    So essentially what happened is that when horoscopic astrology was passed to the Arabs through the Greek writings in the 7th and 8th centuries, the original understanding of how the houses were divided was lost, and through scribal error, and misinterpretations they ended up passing astrology back to the West during the Renaissance with a form of house division that was not intended for what it was being used for. Some of the Arab astrologers such as Masha’allah correctly understood how the Greeks divided the houses, and in his work and several other Arab astrologers works from that period you can see them clearly using Whole Signs, but sadly much of their work was not available by the time astrology made it back to the west, and what little was available, was misunderstood.

    Another interesting dimension to this saga is that Vedic astrology, which was heavily influenced by the Hellenistic astrologers, still uses Whole Sign houses to this day because they didn’t have the problems that western astrology had with it being transmitted from culture to culture, and misinterpreted. Their astrology is still essentially the same as it was 2,000 years ago, and they employ many of the same techniques as the Hellenistic astrologers did, even the same house system – Whole Sign Houses, but for some reason, we in the west lost the connection with our roots.

    So my point with all of this is to try and alert you all that there is a change afoot. This simple, yet remarkably important facet of astrology has been rediscovered and could really go a long way in solving some of the simplest problems (i.e. intercepted houses, multiple systems of house division, etc.) that have plagued us for hundreds of years now.

    At least give it a try and go through a few old charts of people who you know and see if it resonates or elucidates certain areas which had always been a mystery before. Many of the charts may not even change at all, but for the ones that do, be sure to pay attention to planets changing houses, house rulership, and which sign the Midheaven falls in.

    Questions? Comments? Death threats? 

    Whole Sign Houses – the original House system

    From Chris Brennan’s ”The Astrology Podcast” episode no.52

    In 1982 astrologer James Holden published a paper in the American Federation of Astrologers Journal of Research titled Ancient House Division. This is a survey of the type of house division in use in the first thousand years of the practice of western astrology. One of the things that he pointed out that nobody had ever pointed out before is that the original system of house division in western astrology was whole sign houses. He actually personally referred to it as the Sign House System.

    About a decade later in the 1990s Robert Schmidt and Robert Hand started translating some ancient astrological texts from Greek and Latin as part of “Project Hindsight” and were able to also confirm Holden’s original discovery that whole sign houses was the system of house division that all of the ancient astrologers were using. Robert Hand who had been practicing astrology for something like 40 years at that point, started testing it out and using it.  He found it more effective than any other system and so started popularizing the technique from the mid 1990s.

    It wasn’t really until the late 2000s though, I would say 2008-2009-2010 and especially the past few years that whole sign houses really started to catch on so that suddenly it seems like a lot of people are switching to whole sign houses or starting to incorporate it into their practice in different ways, so whole sign houses is quickly becoming one of the most widely used systems of house division in western astrology. So there is a big shift that is taking place, a lot of people are switching to whole sign houses.

     Arguments for the use of  WS Houses – Chris Brennan.

    A pdf of a detailed critique can be downloaded from-


    1. It wasn’t just the original form of house division, it was in fact the dominant form of house division for approximately the first thousand years of the practice of western astrology.

    Hellenistic astrologers used whole sign houses as their primary form of house division and this actually includes some of the most famous and influential astrologers not just from antiquity but also in the history of astrology. This includes Claudius Ptolemy. Ptolemy used whole sign houses as his primary form of house division and I have a long article on that where I just go through and point out every instance in which Ptolemy used whole sign houses in his four book work on astrology. Other famous astrologers that used whole sign houses were astrologers like Vettius Valens, Dorotheus of Sidon, Rhetorius of Egypt and Marcus Manilius as well as basically any other author you could mention during that time period.

    Were a thousand years of astrologers wrong? It is not that other systems of house division didn’t exist or that they weren’t capable of calculating them because in fact they did have the ability to calculate other forms of house division and in some instances they used other forms of house division within the context of specific techniques (eg. length of life technique) and that is actually how quadrant houses and systems like Porphyry houses or Alcabitius houses or other forms of house division were first introduced.

    1. The shift towards quadrant houses actually happened remarkably suddenly and it does not necessarily seem to be very well considered. Some of the earliest Medieval astrologers such as Sahl Ibn Bishr and Masha’allah who were both living and writing texts around the year 800 CE and were still primarily using whole sign houses as their primary form of house division. But then by the time of Abu Ma’shar who lived about 75 years later, and in his works and in the works of his contemporaries and the people immediately after him, suddenly they are using quadrant houses so what this means is that the shift to quadrant houses happened relatively suddenly within the course of potentially even a single generation.

    So why did  this happen? Why did this switch to quadrant houses take place around the ninth century? Frankly the answer is we don’t know because it is not very well documented and nobody has come up with the firm answer at this point in time. There are many different possible theories and Robert Hand speculated at one point in his monograph on whole sign houses that what may have taken place is there may have been a misunderstanding or potentially a translation error at some point in the ninth century where some of the Medieval Arabic astrologers were receiving the earlier Greek astrological tradition and they were translating works from astrological authors from the Hellenistic tradition from Greek into Arabic and that they may have gotten false impression that the Greek astrologers were using quadrant houses all of the time rather than what they were actually doing which was just using quadrant houses within the context of certain techniques eg. length of life.

    1. Gauquelin effect peaks in 12th quadrant house but 1st WSH.
    2. WSH is primary form in India for last 2000 yrs. Passed to India from Hellenistic tradition.
    3. In the past 20 years a number of prominent astrologers have switched to whole sign houses as their sole form of house division or as their primary form of house division. For example Robert Hand, Demetra George, Benjamin Dykes, Robert Schmidt, Rick Levine, Austin Coppock. So when long established astrologers like Rob Hand and Demetra George who have had very long careers in astrology decide to make a huge change in their approach to astrology and get rid of quadrant houses and adopt whole sign houses, this is a really big deal because it means that they are going out of their way to make a huge shift and interrupting their lives and their professional practices in order to do it.

    I would like to add some additional points here –

    1. Quadrant systems break down at higher Latitudes and become too distorted before then. Surely the various delineations of the houses have an equal weighting? Quadrant systems don’t provide this.
    2. The MC is not an equivalent angle to the Asc so why divide the zodiac based on angles that are not directly linked to each other? The equivalent right angle “Angle” to the MC/IC is the Vertex/Anti-Vertex. The Ascendant floats freely in relation to these angles dependent on Latitude.
    3. If there is a strong division at the ascendant position between the first and 12th house then planets in the 12th, even if nearly conjunct the Asc, would be considerably weaker than planets on the first house side of the Asc. Does this bear out in reality? Consider Trump’s “12th” house Mars! Or even Tony Blair’s “12th” house Mars.


    If you are interested in what exactly happened during the shift to the Quadrant systems during Abu Mashar’s time it is worthwhile taking a look at Steven Birchfield’s article –

    Did Abū Ma’shār use whole sign houses or houses using a division?

     Rob Hand’s view

    Rob’s original article on WSH’s can be downloaded as a pdf from-


    I found this article at –


    It gives a brief summery of how he came to find WSH’s and his subsequent usage of the system.

    “In the early 1970’s I attended a workshop at the New York Astrology Center give by the late Hindu astrologer, B.V. Raman. He began presenting his charts and immediately we got first our first surprise. The charts were of course sidereal; that was no surprise. The surprise was the house system! The houses each consisted of an entire sign and only one sign. We dubbed this the “Whole-Sign House System.” I remember turning to a friend and saying “I wonder if this is what Ptolemy was actually doing.” By that time I had enough familiarity with Ptolemy to realize that he did not seem to be using either Placidus, as Placidus thought, or Equal Houses as most others thought.

    That is where my earliest speculation stopped. I found it difficult to believe in such a simple system and at that point in my career tended not to use houses at all following the houseless system of Reinhold Ebertin, also known as Cosmobiology. A few years later I began using Placidus houses, more or less the default option of the time, but then after attending a workshop by the late Edith Wangemann, I switched over to the Koch or Birthplace House System. However, in this whole period I noticed that the angular and cadent houses worked more or less but that the succedent houses did not work as well. These are the houses most affected by the differences among the house systems.

    I turn now to the 90’s and the beginnings of the research into Hellenistic astrology. When we began to examine the Greek text of Ptolemy, we found abundant evidence that he did in fact use the signs as houses in the same manner as the Hindu astrologers. The passages that have been cited as evidence of his use of other house systems all appear to have been misinterpretations.

    Further investigations indicated that the vast majority of Hellenistic astrologers used the signs as houses in exactly the same manner. It even became clear that the earlier Arabic astrologers did as well including Masha’Allah, Zahel, Omar of Tiberias and Abu Ali Al-Khayyat. However, by the time that Europeans discovered Arabic astrology and began to translate it into Latin, the Alcabitius house system had displaced the Whole Sign system.

    Impressed by the weight of evidence from Hellenistic astrology, I began drawing my charts in such a manner that I could read them using either Koch or Whole Signs. I found that invariably the Whole Sign Houses gave better results, even when the ascendant was in the late degrees of a sign. I was not prepared to accept this conclusion; I was intensely skeptical. But I was forced to Whole Sign Houses and from that time forward I have never found it necessary to use any other system for any purpose. Horary practitioners will be interested to know that the two oldest texts on horary astrology, Masha’Allah’s On Reception, and Zahel’s Introduction both employ Whole Sign Houses. James Holden in his writings has also noted the tendency of these early authors to use Whole Sign Houses.

    They fly in the face of the conventional wisdom in astrology, but Whole Sign Houses work very well indeed, including the succedent houses. Many astrologers find them hard to accept. However, logic is quite simple. There is no such thing as a house apart from a sign. There are only signs. When they are counted from Aries, they are signs; when they are counted from the rising sign, they are houses. Functioning as houses is one of the things that signs do.”

     So how can we reconcile the different and competing Astrological Systems?

    To get to grips with these issues we need to consider how astrology actually works.

    The current materialistic scientific paradigm negates the idea of an astrological influence because it has no recognised system through which astrological influences can work.

    1. no astrological “field of influence” has been “discovered”.

    However! The current materialistic scientific paradigm is outdated by the discovery of the weird and wonderful world of Quantum Physics as discovered a century ago.

    So how has (or should have!) this discovery affected our view of the workings of the universe of which we are a part?

    The most notorious experiment showing how the materialistic paradigm is challenged is the “double slit” experiment.

    There are many youtube videos explaining this experiment. You could try-

    This experiment is mostly discussed in terms of the paradox of the wave/particle duality.

    Basically a photon of light can behave as a particle and also as a wave function.

    From a materialistic viewpoint this is very difficult to get your head around!

    However! What is really interesting is that when an observation is made of a “wave” of light it causes it to behave as a particle. ie. the wave function collapses to a point.

    Okay, this really has physicists scratching their heads. Those firmly entrenched in the materialistic paradigm have done everything they can to try and explain this within their system.

    Others have simply ignored the ramifications and followed the premise that we can never really understand quantum physics but it works so we’ll just use it anyway!

    There are a small sub-set of physicists that are thinking outside of the box and supposing a world where consciousness is primary and the material world of particles does not come into existence unless observed by some level of consciousness.

    There are then issues of what this consciousness is?

    In the materialistic paradigm matter is primary and consciousness is an epi-phenomenon arising from matter. The upcoming paradigm reverses this and at it’s extreme version the material world is purely an expression of consciousness.

    This puts it very neatly into a parallel with the ancient mystical religions which all consider consciousness to be fundamental in their views of the world.

    So, however it works, it appears that consciousness is primary and so we can infer from this a realisation of how the astrological effect manifests itself.

    As the material world is divided into basic subatomic forms so the consciousness that it derives from must express a template or mirror of these fundamental forms.

    The most fundamental constituent of matter is the quark which combines in it’s various forms to create the protons and neutrons that make up the nuclei of atoms.

    Okay here comes the best bit. There are SIX types of quark known as up, down, strange, charm, bottom and top. Each is unique in it’s properties. (note – there are also 6 types of Leptons and 12 guage bosons in the Standard model of elementary particles – oh, and one Higgs boson!)

    So it appears that there is an inherent 6 fold division in the world of matter and thus by inference there is also a basic 6 fold division in the world of consciousness (the psyche).

    This is why the 12 fold division of the circle as used in the Zodiac is so fundamental to the human psyche. It echo’s the primordial 6 fold division as manifest in matter.

    At this point you may be wondering why I’m going on about a 6 fold division when the Zodiac is a 12 fold division!

    Well, actually the zodiac can be thought of as a 6 fold division with each “part” being divided into 2 parts – a “positive” sign and a “negative” sign.

    With a little thought it can be seen how this may work. Each pair of signs form a whole part. eg. Aries and Taurus are the pairing of the masculine and feminine archetypes. Gemini and Cancer are the pairing of thought and feelings. Leo and Virgo are self-centeredness and servitude. Libra and Scorpio are level evenness and extremism. Sagittarius and Capricorn are expansion and limitation. Aquarius and Pisces are universal mind and feeling.

    So as consciousnesses we need a framework to manifest the inherent divisions of the psyche.

    As the collective consciousness of the human race began to observe the sky and the movements of the Sun, Moon, planets and fixed stars we found in these motions a framework upon which to define the fundamental divisions of the conscious psyche.

    The movement of the Sun across the sky provided our frame of reference and we called this great circle through the sky “the ecliptic”. This circle needed a “start” reference point and as the original formulators of this system lived in the northern hemisphere, the natural starting point became the spring vernal equinox. The moment in the natural world where the new agricultural year started.

    So the Zodiac was born!

    The constellations through the ecliptic became defined as they are now around the 6th century BC.

    Wikipedia states that-

    “The classical zodiac was introduced in the neo-Babylonian period (ca. 7th to 6th century BC). At the time, the precession of the equinoxes had not been discovered. Classical Hellenistic astrology consequently developed without consideration of the effects of precession. The discovery of the precession of the equinoxes is attributed to Hipparchus, a Greek astronomer active in the later Hellenistic period (ca. 130 BCE).
    Ptolemy writing some 250 years after Hipparchus was thus aware of the effects of precession. He opted for a definition of the zodiac based on the point of vernal equinox, i.e. the tropical system.”

    So the defining of the constellations around the ecliptic (roughly marking the 12 zodiac divisions) at the time of the great Axial age conjunction (see below), created the backdrop for the accurate observations of planetary positions from thenceforth. Or at least until precession annoyingly started to shift this natural frame of reference!

    The Axial Age and the Birth of Astrology

    Axial Age (also Axis Age, from German: Achsenzeit) is a term coined by German philosopher Karl Jaspers in the sense of a “pivotal age” characterizing the period of ancient history from about the 8th to the 3rd century BC.

    He argued that during the Axial Age, “the spiritual foundations of humanity were laid simultaneously and independently in China, India, Persia, Judea, and Greece.

    Richard Tarnas in his excellent book “Cosmos and Psyche” discusses the axial age with reference to the great outer planet conjunctions of Uranus, Neptune & Pluto which were all conjunct within 2 degrees from 9-13 degrees of Taurus at 576-577 BC.

    At this time several very important historical figures were born-

    Buddha – c. 563 BC

    Confucius – 551 BC

    Lao Tzu – possibly legendary figure. Contemporaneous with Confucius. Attributed founder of Taoism.

    Pythagoras – c.570 BC. Do not underestimate the influence of the Pythagoreans! (See Wiki).

    I would argue here that the foundation of the modern astrological tradition derived from the energy of this conjunction.

    Think how the energies of the mid 60’s conjunction of Uranus and Pluto and also the early 90’s conjunction of Uranus and Neptune influenced the resurgence of astrology.

    Next conjunction of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto – 3370 AD!

    So, returning to the idea that consciousness is primary.

    If we follow the rabbit hole down which this leads we get to an understanding that it is the collective consciousness (or as Jung terms it “the collective unconscious”) of the human psyche that determines the manifest reality of which we are a part.

    This may sound like new age waffle but there is evidence to support the existence of the non-material (or psychic) realm from outside of quantum physics.

    One obvious consideration is the existence of instincts. If you stop to consider exactly what instincts are you inevitably come to the conclusion that they are a manifestation of the collective psyche of a species or group of species.

    Rupert Sheldrake explores this idea further with the idea of “morphogenetic fields” that shape the physical development of all living things.

    In Biology, the current paradigm cannot explain instinct nor can it explain how consciousness can arise as an epi-phenomenon of the brain. (this is known as the “hard problem” in neuroscience).

    A materialist will argue that the physical structure of DNA encodes for the development of life and also will explain instinct through this coding. They will also deny that there is any other esoteric field or force that is involved in these processes. Matter is all there is! And we live in a soulless universe.

    However just to digress a bit and have a pop at these soulless materialists there is a problem with their view of the functionality of DNA.

    DNA is by it’s nature a binary “computer” code with the 0’s and 1’s represented by the C-T and A-G chemical bonding connecting the double strands in the DNA molecule.

    However to turn this code into instructions to build proteins etc. you need to have what is known in computer programming parlance as a “Compiler” ie. you need an intelligently created system that will transcribe the coded instructions into an actual event. Without this “intelligent” compiler the code is simply random nonsense.

    In other words there has to be an intelligence of some sort to interface between the code and what it is that the code “codes” for.

    To me this is direct evidence for a non material intelligent “field” of consciousness.

    We can take the DNA analogy further with the idea of “archetypes” and the planetary structure of the Zodiac circle.

    An archetype can be seen as a specific part of the whole psyche and the planetary positions on the zodiac as a form of computer program. Our consciousness acts as the “compiler” transcribing the planetary positions and angular relationships into a (personally) meaningful relationship between all of the archetypes that together make up the whole of the psyche.

    So in a roundabout way I’ve arrived at a realisation that it is our consciousness or I should say the field of human consciousness (past and present) that determines how we transcribe (or relate or link) the physical planetary positions and angular relationships to the all pervading archetypes that together make up the whole of the human psyche.

    This now leads me onto a discussion of how the various astrological techniques can be understood in relation to the extent to which they are directed by the collective consciousness of the human psyche.

    Before we discuss house systems it may be worthwhile to deliberate on the biggest “elephant in the room” in the practise of astrology and that is the use of the tropical vs. sidereal zodiacs.

    We in the west are very much brought up on the assumption that the tropical zodiac is the one true zodiac and conversely virtually all Indian astrologers believe the sidereal to be the one true zodiac.

    There are 2 points here. The first is that from the Tropical perspective it makes more sense astronomically to define the start of the zodiac by the intersection of the Earth’s equatorial plane with the Sun, rather than starting it with an arbitrarily defined point on the ecliptic as defined by the fixed star background.

    The second is that although the above may be true, because there are so many Vedic astrologers the collective consciousness of these astrologers has affected the manifestation of the zodiac positions so that within the Indian community the sidereal zodiac may indeed have relevance or even prominence over the tropical zodiac.

    It follows on that in the case of the validity of the different house systems it may be that the quadrant house systems as used today (eg. Placidus) have a validity within the collective psyche of the practitioners of the system.

    So if enough people actually believe in the validity of a system it may then start to manifest within the society in which these people live.

    The actual origin of modern western astrology must have occurred in this way.

    There may have been competing astrological methodologies originally but at some point general agreement was come to and the basic tenets of modern astrology became firmly entrenched in the human psyche.

    An astrological instinct was born!

    So I agree that there may be a degree of validity to the various competing house systems.

    However! The primary house system for the first 1000 years at least was whole sign houses. So this is firmly entrenched in the collective astrological psyche and is the system that the astrological tradition was “born” with.

    We know through mundane astrology how important the inception chart is for a country and even when that country undergoes serious transformation so long as it remains the same “nation” it retains the original chart as the primary chart and adds “overlays” of the charts of subsequent events.

    So where does that leave us?

    I would like to see an eventual agreement on house system usage within the astrological community but for this to happen there has to be a collective agreement between the factions.

    What may facilitate this is the understanding that we as conscious beings are the co-creators of reality so that no one system of reality is “right”, it is simply the one that we choose to manifest.

    If we follow this train of thought then we realise that there is no one absolute “correct” reality out there and we should not therefore become so personally invested in the correctness of one particular system.

    That said it would help our cause as astrologers if we could agree upon a system and then allow that system to take precedence within the collective astrological psyche.

    And in the case of competing house systems why should we not choose the system that was the primary system for the for the first millennium of the astrological tradition.

    Not only that, it is the most logical system in that it does not break down at high latitudes and it is not defined by great circles in the sky that actually have no direct relationship with each other.

    I hereby rest my case m’lud.