it seems morin would have been a fan of modern astrology in that he does think having more planets in a house makes that house more 'important'.. i think morin is considered trad, lol.

"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, and the more planets are in that house the more they indicate something important-be it good or ill." he then uses his own chart as an example.. page 67 book 21.
for anyone who would like to read morins take on toms question - see book 21 chapter 3.. it confirms some of the earlier comments made in this thread..

joahnnes - see pag 70 chapter 3 in book 21.

james_m wrote:

by all means, one can learn from others and it doesn't have to be about only one area of astrology, but as kirk likes to point out - this is the old school sandbox..

I think the general idea is to compare Morin's schema to the 50 or so that came before not the 250 which came after. Practically this can be difficult if somewhere in your circuitry is an exposure to some of the 250,

I can?t off the top of my head recall seeing this idea about benefices coming after malefics resulting in more 'fortunate' outcomes in any other schema to date, so I wonder where Morin got the idea in the first place or was it self -generated?

Having thought about it for a couple of days I can't see the logic or find any 'empirical 'reasons to suggest it might be a runner for the moment, may need a few other charts to play with here.?

It seems Morin would have been a fan of modern astrology in that he does think having more planets in a house makes that house more 'important'... i think morin is considered trad, lol.

Psychological Astrologers don?t consider a house more important because it has more planets in it.

. . .

. . .

hey there nixx,

this idea (about benefices coming after malefics resulting in more 'fortunate' outcomes and the opposite etc. etc.) is probably connected to the use of primary directions..using clintons chart pd movements will bring mars or venus to the ascendant before jupiter..

perhaps a better example to see about applying the idea, if it holds some water would be on a chart like roger federer's. http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Federer,_Roger
jupiter follows saturn closely.. if the time from memory is close, the primary direction of saturn will reach his ascendant before jupiter.. i note the solar arc direction of midheaven for federer using this same 840am time is square natal saturn at this time, while his natal chart has a close trine between midheaven and both saturn/jupiter.. i am not sure how much money he won in this last tournament he won, but i think it is substantial.. maybe this is a conversation for another thread, but federer will experience the solar arc of midheaven to saturn, before he experiences solar arc to jupiter.. from my own pov - both are favourable as they are both in favourable aspect to his midheaven..

hi kirk - do you agree with morin or not? i am curious..

Kirk wrote:

Where do you get that? It's such a given in modern psychological astrology - forum posts at places like astro.com contain numerous talk of house 'stelliums'.

I've been on astro.com for yrs, on and off, and seen about 5 Psychological Astrologers there in that time. I'm talking about the Psychodynamic approach not the popular'character is fate' post Leo one. I spent 3 yrs at the CPA as well so you can take my word for it perhaps ? Houses where the Sun and Moon sit are the important ones in this schema. A stellium can be important of course it depends, not always.

james_m wrote:hey there nixx,

this idea (about benefices coming after malefics resulting in more 'fortunate' outcomes and the opposite etc. etc.) is probably connected to the use of primary directions..using clintons chart pd movements will bring mars or venus to the ascendant before jupiter..

perhaps a better example to see about applying the idea, if it holds some water would be on a chart like roger federer's. http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Federer,_Roger
jupiter follows saturn closely.. if the time from memory is close, the primary direction of saturn will reach his ascendant before jupiter.. i note the solar arc direction of midheaven for federer using this same 840am time is square natal saturn at this time, while his natal chart has a close trine between midheaven and both saturn/jupiter.. i am not sure how much money he won in this last tournament he won, but i think it is substantial.. maybe this is a conversation for another thread, but federer will experience the solar arc of midheaven to saturn, before he experiences solar arc to jupiter.. from my own pov - both are favourable as they are both in favourable aspect to his midheaven..

Interesting idea, I can't really comment either way on the veracity of it.

Coincidentally I was looking at Federer's chart yesterday during the match and did think about this Morin notion. He has been at the top of the Tennis tree for about 8 years, by and large, and been a multi millionare, even billionaire?, for some time now.

A bit like Clinton mixed views about him, personally I find him a little arrogant and limited. However, I can imagine him being a Public presence for many years and commanding a lot of respect in the Tennis world at least.

. . .

. . .

It's worth pointing out that Nixx tends to capitalise psychological astrologer as Psychological Astrologer - I've mentioned this in other forums, but Nixx tends to differentiate between astrologers who focus on the psyche of the individual, which you and I would call psychological astrologers, and then those who are from the Liz Greene/Howard Sasportas/CPA School which he refers to as Psychological Astrologers. I've never been able to find an example of where Liz Greene etc refer to themselves like this, so it seems an odd idiosyncrasy.

Nixx wrote:Psychological Astrologers don?t consider a house more important because it has more planets in it.

I think this is a debatable point. It's true that psychological astrologers do not consider, for example, empty houses unimportant, but that's not to say that they don't, generally, consider a house with many planets more important.

Many psychological astrologers do indeed consider a house with more than one planet as of extra importance or significance.

For example.

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