This is re-printed from ECLIPSE.
Thoughtful reader CC asked how to integrate info gleaned from Placidus and Whole Sign charts. That’s a very good question, and one I’ve wrestled with myself. I had been totally satisfied with Placidus, but when I experimented with Whole Sign what I experienced was a more complete and even-handed sense of the placements. By that I mean, the Placidus system, though handling the Houses on the angles well, tends to ‘hide’ the cadent and succedent Houses— while we can fix the Ascendant to the horizon, succedent and cadent cusps sometimes appear almost arbitrary (even though they are found by a complex series of calculations, with, for example, the 11th and 12th cusps determined by trisecting the rate of movement of any degree of the ecliptic from MC to ASC). Determining Placidus House cusps isn’t easy; these cusps respond to the latitude for the spot for which the chart is drawn, but Placidus is a time-based system, that works on fractions of diurnal and nocturnal movement. The higher latitudes are what give us the famous extreme variations in House size. This implies (and in practice allows for) a lesser possibility that placements will fall in these Houses, especially at higher latitudes–but that’s no reason to dump a system that can be exquisitely responsive in expressing the personality of an individual.
Though I’ve had great luck timing events in a person’s life to a body’s contact with an angle, the succedent and cadent Placidus House cusps were not so sensitive; in my experience things pass over them, often with nary a whisper. I found this frustrating, but not inexplicable—after all, many things are happening in a chart at any time, and we won’t see major experiences corresponding to each contact. The problem for me, though, was that I should’ve seen something, sometime, when a succedent or cadent cusp had been contacted that signified a major corresponding response, internal or external, in the life of the individual, if this was truly a good system for delineating cadent or succedent Houses—but even when I watched carefully, I don’t recall this ever happening. If something did happen around that time, there was always a better, stronger (astrologically speaking) explanation for it.
What we get from use of Placidus Houses is a portrait of emphases within an individual—and with a correct or near-correct birth time, an extremely useful and descriptive Ascendant and Midheaven—and this is an important point: in Placidus, the Ascendant and Midheaven are really the focal points on which everything else hangs—and to my mind, this is also one of Placidus’ weaknesses. When we put so much attention on those two facets of Being, we quite naturally under-attend other life areas. Placidus feels to me as if it has a very Western, animus energy, concentrated on interfacing with the world (the ASC) and what you ‘do’ and how you are seen (the MC). There’s nothing wrong with that, but it short changes less aggressively oriented life areas, and specifically de-emphasizes anima-centered energies—thus effectively devaluing the natural orientation of roughly half the planet’s population, and framing receptive experiences as ‘less than’—and as well may leave those who don’t have career as the centerpiece of the life feeling like they’re failures.
When we use Whole Signs, though, just about the first thing you’ll notice is that the Ascendant and Midheaven are no longer the stars of the show; they are instead parts of a larger whole—and with this de-emphasis comes a balanced picture that is so at least in part because the artificial divisions are no longer—now we have the vibrational delineation of the signs themselves as House descriptors—and even as I write this I’m thinking that Houses in the Whole Sign system take on an even less restrictive nature than in just about any other system, as there’s no conflict between the placement of a sign and the boundaries of a House—so allowing for a more fluid and simple visual picture (which generally leads to a more fluid and clear understanding of the chart).
When we use Whole Sign Houses, many of us will see shifts of planets to new Houses; I encourage you to see it not as superseding your Placidus placements, but as adding dimension to them, and perhaps showing you a ‘more true’ picture of yourself—that’s what I feel I got, with a shift of Midheaven from 10th to 11th, with 10th now occupied by Scorpio rather than Sagittarius, and my Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, and Sun in Libra all now in the 9th. This fits me as a person a great deal better—I’m a natural teacher (Sun in 9th) rather than a professional one (old Sag MC), for example.
Placidus as a system has always seemed to me very personal; it focuses the energies through cusp designations that are highly sensitive to the place of birth—and so I believe correspond closely to the emotional or psychic essence of the individual who has chosen that spot at that time to incarnate, even though the succedent and cadent cusps themselves do not seem to be sensitive. The cusps in succedent and cadent Placidus Houses seem instead to designate boundaries to an area of sensitivity or energy focus, though they don’t seem to delineate it with any precision.
And that brings me to the practice of reading a placement as if it’s in the next House, if it’s close to the House cusp. I don’t subscribe to this, simply because it’s not placed in the next House, it’s placed in that one! (and we’re speaking only of natal positions, right now) If the placements have meaning at all, in any system, then we cannot simply decide to read things as we will—that will be denying the relevance of the placement, as if the individual knows better than the system—but just in this one instance. I believe this kind of thing has been encouraged because people become familiar with the theories behind Secondary Progressions and Solar Arcs, anticipating an early attitude or character change in life, and begin to think, ‘I’m not really like this, I’m more like that’, especially if they find the birth placement somehow unglamorous. When people say to me that they’re ‘not like’ their Mars in the 4th, say, but like the idea of Mars in the 5th, because somewhere they read that was a ‘sexy’ or creative placement, or they deny their father (the 4th) was ever a Martian figure, and so on, I always think (but don’t always say) ‘You may think that because you haven’t heard all the possibilities, all the facets of the placement’—it’s true that limited understanding often makes for dissatisfaction—with the other potential, of course, being that they don’t see it, because they really don’t know themselves, in anything approaching an objective sense.