Display posts from previous
Sort by

27 by Nixx
Paul wrote:
Nixx wrote:
Howard Sasportas, The Twelve Houses:
Obviously, a house with many planets in it is very important... Any house containing two or more planets will assume extra significance in the person's life plan or purpose
The point I was trying to make to Kirk was that Psychological Astrologers don?t look at a house with 3 or more planets in it and go 'we must start there' or 'this is the crux' etc. I don?t recall there being a lot of Psychology in this book, or of the Psychodynamic kind, so perhaps somewhere between a p and a P.

Sasportas's view here I imagine would be somewhat similar to pre 20th Century Western Astrologers. Kirk may beg to differ?
Odd. I suppose we'll someday have mundane astrologers and Mundane Astrologers, horary astrologers and Horary Astrologers. A person could become weary of it all
You might call it a semantic convenience to use the 2 P's. Traditional Astrologers have similar issues in regards to whereabouts in the Tradition they pitch their interests. The shared ground is the lack of on occasions so conversations can get mighty and unnecessarily confusing if one does not define ones terms.

So if my natal chart's 3rd house is important then, following Morin, "when three, four, or five planets are in the same house this house is clearly more important than the others for it indicates something outstanding in connection with the affairs of that house" I'm left with something outstanding in connection with siblings, cousins, neighbours, letters, telephone calls, deeds, computers, and travel (esp. short distance travel). And a whole lot more.
I understand Morin entertained this axial semantic or 'reflective' house schema similar to the Psychological model (there is some interest in him in this sphere) .Conceptualising the 3rd as exchange/interchange, curiosity/articulation, e.g. Internet Astrology forum posts, we therefore also need to look at the 9th to more fully understand the dynamics/outcomes at play here for the individual, or poster.

I also understand that Morin was working with the one house is more fortunate than another idea and a planet having more in common , categorical analogies, with some houses than others. So quite rapidly a benefic might appear to him less rose tinted than at first glance. ?

So a chart with a benefic following a malefic in both houses might be worth digging out.

28 by johannes susato
Kirk wrote:
james_m wrote:hi kirk - do you agree with morin or not? i am curious..
I don't know. :? Probably not.

So if my natal chart's 3rd house is important then, following Morin, "when three, four, or five planets are in the same house this house is clearly more important than the others for it indicates something outstanding in connection with the affiars of that house" I'm left with something outstanding in connection with siblings, cousins, neighbors, letters, telephone calls, deeds, computers, and travel (esp. short distance travel). And a whole lot more.

I would rather approach the chart with a clear question concerning cousins or neighbors. Then I can exclaim 'What a busy house' and get to work learning all about my neighbor (although it's probably easier to just ask the neighbor over on the other side).


:???: Hmm . . . Misleading. I don't think my natal chart is going to give me the low down on Bob on the other side of the fence. That's where the other neighbors provide a service.
I can't see the problem: if there is a house without any planet, you cannot say anything about this house directly but only indirectly (via rulership and other dignities).
If there is one planet in a house there is one (direct) testimony and if there are 5 planets in that house you had 5 direct testimonies alone by the position in this house; and of course mutiplied by the indirect testimonies mentioned above.
In directions again the house is affected as often as planets are therein. And always this single or special house. And again, and again, and again.
This is not a problem of modern or classical astrology. Judging a single house Ptlolemy, Firmicus Maternus, the Arabs, Bonatus, Alan Leo and Liz Green and all other astrologers were surely consenting in mentioning this house as often at least as planets are therein.

As far as I remember, it is Morin who gives warning to judge a nativity as a whole but he gives advice to focus on special questions thus avoiding to end up in endless turns.

Johannes
Last edited by johannes susato on Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

29 by Paul
Nixx wrote:The point I was trying to make to Kirk was that Psychological Astrologers don?t look at a house with 3 or more planets in it and go 'we must start there' or 'this is the crux' etc. I don?t recall there being a lot of Psychology in this book, or of the Psychodynamic kind, so perhaps somewhere between a p and a P.
No, but did Kirk himself suggest that the main 'go to' or 'crux' is if a house has many planets? In the section you quoted he just says that modern astrologers tend to suggest that a house with several planets is somewhat more important. It was this point about a house having more planets being more important that you disagreed with.

I'm not sure what you mean by not much Psychology in the book. In fact Howard Sasportas begins the book by explicitly referencing it as being a psychological approach to the houses, he does it again in the preface and then Liz Greene echoes him in her introduction to the book.
If they consider it psychological in approach, and these are your Psychological Astrologers, I'm not sure what suggests to you that it's not a good example. This is the only book dedicated to the houses, as far as I can recall, by the CPA-style approach to astrology - and done by one of the founders of the CPA itself. In regards a question of houses, in what sense is THE book on houses not a good example to use?
You might call it a semantic convenience to use the 2 P's. Traditional Astrologers have similar issues in regards to whereabouts in the Tradition they pitch their interests. The shared ground is the lack of on occasions so conversations can get mighty and unnecessarily confusing if one does not define ones terms.
They normally get around this by not branding any one tradition as The Tradition, they don't, therefore, reference themselves as being Traditional Astrologers whereas someone else is just a traditional astrologer. They tend to reference or group ideas either by author or by era, much like most other people do for modern astrology.

30 by johannes susato
Paul wrote:Many psychological astrologers do indeed consider a house with more than one planet as of extra importance or significance.
Do you think classical astrologers would dissent in this consideration?

In this point there cannot be any dissent between astrologers, can it?

Johannes

31 by Nixx
Paul,

If you wish to discuss the rationale further it would be better to start a new thread on the Philosophy board or transfer your post there. It may generate some interest.

This board is set up to discuss schisms, dogmas and confusions from earlier in the tradition.

33 by Nixx
johannes susato wrote:
Nixx wrote:This board is set up to discuss schisms, dogmas and confusions from earlier in the tradition.
? ? ?

Johannes
See Tom's guidelines above the topics. Pre 20th Century Western Astrology.

34 by Paul
Nixx wrote:Paul,

If you wish to discuss the rationale further it would be better to start a new thread on the Philosophy board or transfer your post there. It may generate some interest.

This board is set up to discuss schisms, dogmas and confusions from earlier in the tradition.
Nixx

I don't really have much more to say on the matter other than that Kirk's suggestion that psychological astrologers do suggest that houses with more than one planet in it are 'more important', broadly speaking, and all else being equal, does have a basis in reality.

For what it's worth I understand this thread to be about the ways to approach interpreting a house with multiple planets in it - not about discussing schisms, dogmas and confusions. Those things arose as a side-effect but aren't the main purpose of this thread.

johannes susato wrote: Do you think classical astrologers would dissent in this consideration?

In this point there cannot be any dissent between astrologers, can it?

Johannes
Well I'd be inclined to think so, implicitly at least if not explicitly. Whether it's just by the fact that so many other houses will be ruled by planets in the one house or whether it's because of primary directions, or even that in a given year a profection will come to that house place - I would think, implicitly at least, that the house would, classically, gain additional focus for the astrologer.

As I have a foot in both the traditional camp as well as retaining some influences and ideas from the modern camp, I can't say for definite that this is the case so would bow down to more educated minds than mine on the matter. I cannot recall it being explicitly stated, but if it was I might not have even remembered.
Last edited by Paul on Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

35 by Nixx
For what it's worth I understand this thread to be about the ways to approach interpreting a house with multiple planets in it - not about discussing schisms, dogmas and confusions. Those things arose as a side-effect but aren't the main purpose of this thread - even if the board, in a broader level, does.
More specifically the thinking of Jean-Baptiste Morin de Villefranche?s in this respect, as a starting point at least. If you stuck 10 ''Traditional Astrologers'' in a room with this idea for a day (sounds like a Philosophy thought experiment) the bulk of the conversation could retrospectively be summarised as contentious, if not lively. Hopefully they would leave as the best of friends, between clenched teeth. If you stuck 10 of your 'psychological astrologers' in a room with the same idea there may be a punch up, or one or two may fall asleep. If you stuck 10 'Psychological Astrologers' in the room with the same idea the banter may flow a bit more seamlessly (shared concepts) and they may even spend the afternoon in the pub.

Someone ought to organise this and stick it on YouTube. Perhaps a quicker, more tangible and accurate way of getting a firm grasp on the last 2,000 of Western Astrology than ploughing through Campion's 2 volume opus.

36 by johannes susato
Nixx wrote:
johannes susato wrote:
Nixx wrote:This board is set up to discuss schisms, dogmas and confusions from earlier in the tradition.
? ? ?

Johannes
See Tom's guidelines above the topics. Pre 20th Century Western Astrology.
I find two guidelines above the topics but cannot find anything written by Tom (Pre 20th Century Western Astrology) comparing to your words. Instead I read this for exmple:
"This particular forum exists to learn, apply, and exchange techniques and ideas regarding traditional and ancient astrology and astrologers."

Johannes
!! Read first: forum policies
Recent topics
Post Reply

Return to “Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques”