Why are your electional charts cast using Quadrant-style houses instead of Whole Sign?

We do use and read Whole Sign Houses, I (Kaitlin) am most comfortable casting in Placidus and have trained my mind to see Whole Sign on top. Here's how/ why:

Once you get used to reading a specific house system, it can be difficult to acclimate to different ways of looking at them, *and* various methods emphasize different types of information, visually speaking.

My interest in astrology began as a teenager around 2003, before the Whole Sign house system became the default for many who learned during (or following) the Hellenistic renaissance, broadly popularized just before and throughout the 2010s.

As I began learning and incorporating those techniques into my own astrology, one that seemed especially key was the concept of "goading", which has to do with whether or not a planet is in front of (or behind) its closest respective Angle.

Put another way: whether or not a planet has already conjoined the Rising, Midheaven, Descendant, or IC and is in the process of falling away from it, OR is in a relationship of "Ascension" in regards to it. Similar to the concept of applying vs. departing aspects, but as applied to Angles.


Goaded planets are more active and pronounced than those which are not goaded, and the difference is easier to assess visually when charts are cast in styles such as Placidus (to my eye at least).

Goaded planets are always Angular by Quadrant division, since they sit before the angle, though they may or may not be by Whole Sign. When that is the case, an astrologer who understands "goading" anticipates the planet will *act* Angular and adjust expectations for its prominence in the life and personality (knowing its expression is emphasized).




Was this article helpful?
0 out of 0 found this helpful



Please sign in to leave a comment.