Skyscript Astrology Forum

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:56 pm**

Hi Olivia,

just one thing I noticed in your chart:
Your second cusp is on the antiscion of your asc.

I have no idea,how to delineate this, but I have almost the same asc and cusps, and i always tend to take decisions that are bad for my financial well-being, focusing on my physical well-being instead....
something like: my physical well-being throwing a shadow (antiscion) on my financial one...

So an antiscion might not work favorably here....or does it ? (Anitiscia are usually considered working "behind the scenes" not necessarily in a negative way..)

(sorry for disgressing from the topic)

leywand

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:19 pm**

Mithra6 wrote:I've taken Zoller's course, and the way I understand is that it depends on the perspective.

I think it's sort of like saying, "the cat was bitten by the dog while in yard", or "while in the yard, the dog bit the cat". Either way there is a yard, a dog, a cat, and a bite.

Mithra6, You are surely right from Morin's point of view. And to decide, how all this is connected, is in the words of Morin, the art and very difficult, because there is no fixed mechanism. This is my understanding of Morin.

And I should really like to know, whether my understanding of Morin is right and whether Zoller is contradicting Morin to that discussed extant and if and how Zoller reasons his opinion, or not.

It would be very intersting to know whether Zoller is leading founded beyond Morin.

yuzuru wrote: I think there is a possible problem here, of trying to fit astrology into our perceptions and desires, and not fit ourselves into it.

Yes, Morin has his opinions as has Zoller, me, Steven, etc. But reading real charts usually show that reality is more complex than any simple answer.

Yuzuru, you are right, to remember that problem of "trying to fit astrology into our perceptions and desires, and not fit ourselves into it."

But as yet we don't discuss our perceptions and disires as to astrology. In fact we are trying to state some facts of the teaching of Morin and to clarify the facts of Zollers relation to these teachings.

We are still in the state of ascertaining - to stick to your picture - the opinion of Morin and Zoller and we are far away to compare these teachings to our own opinion and experience.

Johannes

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:19 pm**

Hi Johannes,

Obviously you can't find a justification Zoller gives for his modification or constriction of the teachings of Morin.

I can`t find a passage where he constricts or changes Morin`s teaching or where he says that he differs from Morin with his teaching. But I can find passages where he mentions Morin in a very positve way more than once. He mentions Morin`s Book 21 as: "...a tremendously valuable document. Morinus holds, and rightly so, that....."
He goes with Morin in saying that house position is always stronger than rulership. He cites Morin when explaining accidential benefics and malefics etc.

But I never found a passage where Zoller explicitly says that his approach in delineating house rulership is according to Morin or against Morins teaching - in this context he does not mention Morin.

Obviously Zoller doesn't quote Morin, so the river has to flow up to its spring . . .

Yes, he does (see above). He also mentions Morin`s Book 21 as a reference.

Jogi, as you have a problem to swim in the Zoller-River, why don't you go to the spring and reread the clearly speaking Morin? And after that Zoller may surely be a gain for you.

I started first with Zoller a year or so ago (of course I was not new to Astrology). I was quite new to TA and I first had his Foundation Course, then the DMA Course. At that time I already had Book 21 from Morin, but haven`t read it so far. I started to read Morin simultaneously because Zoller mentioned Morin very often (together with Bonatti etc.).
Zoller was always consistent with Morin but then I found Zollers approach and his explanations concerning rulership delineation confusing. And Zoller does not mention that he uses another way than Morin in this context.

I think that part of my confusion is due to translation difficulties - e.g. outcome and realization can have the same German word or can mean the same.

In fact we are trying to state some facts of the teaching of Morin and to clarify the facts of Zollers relation to these teachings.

I think we do 3 things here: a) clarifying the facts of Morin, b) clarifying the facts from Zoller and c) clarifying Zoller`s facts in relation to Morin`s teaching.
When a), b), and c) is clear we have to try all of them in practice with different charts and then decide if there is an approach that does describe reality better than another or not - after all, every astrological technique should be successful to a certain extend; if not we maybe should put it aside. And we also have to decide which approach fits our astrological personality and perception best.

By the way: Johannes did you find my PM?

Hi Yuzuru,

There will always be a great degree of ambiguity in astrology, and that is a good thing... all the "clear and cut" methods that I tried always fail. There is a degree of messiness in it.

That`s also true to a certain extend. But nevertheless in my opinion it`s important that we first try to get rid of this ambiguity and fogginess. Only when there is definitely no way and we cannot come to a solution then we have to live with it - for better or for worse

J?rgen

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:50 pm**

Maybe it's me, but I don't see a huge contradiction now that I look at it.

Basically Morin's example is saying the ruler of the 10th in the 12, that the profession is the cause for losing the job.

Zoller says the 10th ruler is in the 7th. Mars produces the career.

I think this is a case of not writing clearly.

If the ruler of the 10th is in the 12th, then this shows some kind of dissolution regarding the job no matter how you look at it. You could play around with the exact meaning though. It could also mean you are going to jail because of the job, or you will get gravely ill.

Zoller is just saying that Mars ruling the 10th produces the job. Since it's in the 7th, a partnership may result, but it could also mean an enemy or a lawsuit too.

In either case, the ruler of the 10th is the one that produces the profession. The house that ruler is placed in shows HOW that "producer" will produce.

I feel like George Bush saying "decider".

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:57 pm**

leywand wrote: Your second cusp is on the antiscion of your asc.

Hi, leywand, that sounds very interesting indeed, but it doesn't really look convincingliy because if I'm not totally wrong, antiscia between housecups don't work, even though the ascendent is participating. Hausecups have no light, and thus they can neither cast own aspects nor antiscia.

Posted: **Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:31 am**

Or it may work. Don't want to think about how much money has gone out the door because of physical well-being needs, and when it comes right down to it, yes, the financial well-being almost always gets sacrificed to things like health.

So I'll never be rich. At this point I may never be middle-class again. Somehow, though, there's always just enough to get by, and it seems like if something important comes up, money appears one way or another to take care of it. Like the place I live - horrible neighbourhood, but the flat's not bad, and it was the last flat in the last socialist co-op the government allowed to be built. Something like 220 people applied to buy it, and I'm the one who got it, and got the money to pay for it, even though I had no reason to believe I would - except I knew I would - makes no sense, I know. Or when I've had to travel for some reason I've always been able to - I mean since I haven't been working full-time - I used to travel a lot then, I enjoy doing it.

There were a couple of years when that didn't happen and those were fairly horrific, but (fingers crossed) things seem to be getting sort of back to normal.

Posted: **Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:54 am**

Olivia wrote: This would work primarily with whole signs, or someone born at a latitude that's, say, within 30 degrees of the equator or thereabouts? It does make sense, but not with many time-or-space based house systems in very north or south latitudes - you'll often end up with a sixth house that can't 'see' the tenth house in those situations.

Or am I completely off-beam here?

It would still apply if the ruler of the 6th or 2nd was conjunct or in aspect with the ruler of the 10th.

Posted: **Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:42 pm**

johannes wrote:

Hausecups have no light, and thus they can neither cast own aspects nor antiscia.

But they fall into certain degrees that are related through antiscion.
The degrees are always related through antiscion even when no planet (and no light) is there.

So I think antiscia of housecusps are effective...

Posted: **Fri Mar 06, 2009 11:11 pm**

Jogi wrote:I started first with Zoller a year or so ago (of course I was not new to Astrology). [. . .] I started to read Morin simultaneously because Zoller mentioned Morin very often (together with Bonatti etc.).

Now I can understand your difficulties. It is not easy, to learn the teachings of an author by the teachings of another, who possibly differs in parts of the first. It is quite another thing, to compare both authors knowig the teachings of one of them already. And here it would have been a lot easier, to have studied Morin first viz. his Book XXI.

Jogi wrote:I can`t find a passage where he constricts or changes Morin`s teaching or where he says that he differs from Morin with his teaching. [. . .]
But I never found a passage where Zoller explicitly says that his approach in delineating house rulership is according to Morin or against Morins teaching - in this context he does not mention Morin. [. . .]
He also mentions Morin`s Book 21 as a reference.

When my understanding of you is correct, then Zoller keeps mentioning Morins writings but is not quoting him concretely. And then you are quite right:

Jogi wrote:I think we do 3 things here: a) clarifying the facts of Morin, b) clarifying the facts from Zoller and c) clarifying Zoller`s facts in relation to Morin`s teaching.

Johannes

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2009 10:09 am**

Hi Johannes,

Now I can understand your difficulties. It is not easy, to learn the teachings of an author by the teachings of another, who possibly differs in parts of the first.

As I have mentioned before I never found a section in Zoller`s course where he explicitly says that he differs from Morin with what he teaches. This is my own subjective feeling/thinking and only in connection with house rulerships and there only when Zoller makes the additional difference between "outcom" and "realization".
Otherwise Zoller teaches rulership according to Morin. Zoller says: "...I will underscore the difference by saying that there is a difference between entering into a financial partnership where you support the partner and one in which the partnership supports you. Th difference is that in one case (Ruler of 2nd in 7th) money flows from your account into your partner`s account; in the other case it flows from your partner`s account into yours. [...] My intend is to show the "flow" from one house to another and to distinguish between outcome and realization."
Here he teaches exactly the same as Morin - but he makes the fine difference between outcome and realization.

When my understanding of you is correct, then Zoller keeps mentioning Morins writings but is not quoting him concretely.

Sorry to say that, but in this case your understanding is wrong: Zoller does not quote Morin in connection with house rulership - neither in a positive nor in a negative way (at least I haven`t found a passage yet). In the cases he quotes him, he does this in an absolutely correct way. He even recommends Morin`s AG Book 21 several times. This was also the reason, why I began reading Morin simultaneously.

Now, I would like to post parts of the original text of Zoller because I hope that some English native speakers can help me/us by finding other or better words (maybe easier to understand) to explain the same what Zoller says.

In discussing this challenging subject (upon which some very important practical decisions in delineation rest) 3 general guidelines must be kept in mind:

1. The ruler of one house in another links those two houses

2. The ruler of one house in another causes the realization of the house it rules

3. The ruler of a house is the outcome of the house it rules.

With respect to #1, we want to know, ?How are the two houses (the house ruled by some planet and the house that planet is in) linked??

With respect to #2 and #3, ?What is the difference between ?outcome? and ?realization?? ?How is outcome shown?? ?How is realization shown??

The key to it is the zodiacal state and strength of the ruler of the house. For it to realize the promise of the house it rules, it must be ?fortunate and strong?, as the medieval authors so frequently state. This means, of good zodiacal state (some measure of dignity; a favourable, or at least not unfavourable, relation with its dispositor; unimpeded by the malefics). Should it be conjunct, square or opposed a malefic, we want to see a reception between the malefic and the ruler. In the absence of a reception the ruler?s ability to realize the affairs of the house it rules is impeded.

As regards the difference between outcome and realization: outcome is the result, what happens as a result, conceptually and possibly temporally after something else. In the course of explaining this, the concept of ?flow? should become clearer.

If I have the ruler of the 1st in the 7th, I want a partner (or interaction with others). First I have the motivation; then I act upon it. The outcome is that I find myself in relationships with other people. The focus of the astrologer is put on the ruler in the 7th in this case. The action (so to speak) is from the native (1st house) to the 7th. We use this kind of thinking when we say that the native will seek to realize his Primary Motivation through the house position, nature and zodiacal state of the ruler of the Ascendant.

Realization is the reverse. The 1st house signifies the native?s life (vita). Each person has a certain kind of life (as we said above re: the martian kind of life). The kind of life we have is determined fist by the sign on the 1st house cusp and any planets in the 1st house. This may be modified by planets aspecting the 1st house cusp. The synthesis of all these factors we call the promise of the 1st house.

But so far we have merely delineated the ?what? of the 1st house, i.e. What the 1st house promises. Will it be realized? Since the good or bad signified (promised) by a house emanates from the ruler of the house, we must look to the ruler of the 1st to see the source or origin of the promise of the 1st house. If the ruler of the 1st is fortunate and strong, the native will realize the promise of the 1st house; if weak and afflicted, he will not.

So far so good: realization means to find the source or origin of the promise of a house.
Then Zoller goes on:

Thus, the term ?outcome? may be best understood as indicating what results from a given house?s promise. In the case of the 1st house, we can discuss this in terms of motivation, the native?s actions and desires. The ascendant ruler can be viewed as indicating the methods used to realize the promise of the house. In the case of the other houses, we put aside all such psychology and speak of results, outcomes and causes. Thus, the ruler of the 2nd in the 11th links the native?s finances (2nd house) with his friends (11th house) How? That depends upon the specifics involved. First, What is the nature of the ruler of the 2nd? What is its zodiacal state? Important in this delineation is the recognition of what the planets do naturally (Sun bestows, burns up; Moon increases and decreases; Venus bestows; Jupiter bestows abundantly; Mercury can bestow or steal depending upon what it is connected with; Mars takes, if he can; Saturn will generally take). But in practice these delineations depend a great deal upon the zodiacal state and local determination of the planets involved.

The outcome may be that, at a certain period of life, the native becomes financially dependent upon others, or financially independent, or has to work extremely hard for his money. The placement, natures and zodiacal state of the rulers of the 2nd house will tell you where the financial needs will lead. In a sense, each of the rulers of the 2nd house is offering help.

Here, in this section he talks about outcome being the result or outcome (clear so far) but the next word is the reason for my confusion = causes. And causes means to me the same as source or origin which he mentions in connection with the term ?realization? allthough he is talking about ?outcome? here.
Maybe I`m too logic (or my thought are totally wrong), but I think there is a tremendous difference between result/outcome and cause/origin/source.

I would welcome every other opinions and explanations.

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:52 pm**

This is confusing - no doubt about it - and for the reasons you state. At one point he is discussing the difference between outcome and realization (in English this seems to be a distinction without a difference), and then he switches to the difference between outcome and causes. Those differences should be obvious.

Starting with the rules:

1) The ruler of one house in another links the houses. This is easy to understand. How they are linked is the challenge.

2) The planet ruling the house it is not occupying is the cause of what will happen or what is promised. He uses the term "causes the realization," and this is vague to say the least.

3) The ruler represents the outcome.

The problem is that the word "realize" has two definitions in English.

1. Become aware
2. To achieve.

It is not clear from the text which one he is using, and perhaps he is using both definitions at different times. If we use the second definition it is almost identical to the definition of "outcome." Therefore we may guess that he is using the first definition or something like it.

If the planet "causes the realization," then the planet makes the native aware of what is promised by the house or should make the native aware, or perhaps blocks awareness. I'm not comfortable with this. However I am less comfortable with the second definition because it is the same as outcome and later on Zoller says realization is the reverse of outcome. I don't see how that is true.

I thought it was going to go like this:

Ruler of 7 in 1 motivates (first house) the native to seek a spouse. The first house motivates the native to engage in relationships (realization) and the outcome is a spouse or no spouse. If he meant this he didn't say it clearly. I'm not sure he meant this at all, but regardless he changes direction mid way through the description.

What the 1st house promises. Will it be realized?

This is a clear reference to the second definition, to achieve.

Then he says:

Thus, the term ?outcome? may be best understood as indicating what results from a given house?s promise.

I don't see the difference between realizing the promise of a house and the results, unless he means that the promise is marriage and without the marriage the promise hasn't been realized, but even the lack of marriage is an outcome. And if the promise is realized it is also an outcome.

When he switches to "causes" the passage just gets lost or at least I get lost.

A good deal of the confusion could be alleviated if he would use words that are not synonymous to make his distinctions. Frankly, I'm not so sure these distinctions are all that important to understanding Lord 7 in 1 or any other combination.

Tom

Posted: **Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:48 pm**

Jogi wrote: So far so good: realization means to find the source or origin of the promise of a house.

Hi Jogi,

in my understanding the quotations of Zoller, your sentence is most problematic if not wrong. Suddenly you seem to understand 'to real?ze' in the sense of 'to find out' [erkennen] whereas all the time you seemed to understand it in the sense of 'to make' possibly with a result. That was and is your question, wasn't it: what is the difference between realization and outcome?

And thanks to your long qoutoations we know now: It is the house, that causes the different term! Zoller discerns between first house and all others. And what in all other houses he calls 'outcome' is in his nomenclature 'realisation' regarding the first, the spring of the motives of the native himself becoming reality by or in the other houses (according to the lord of the asdendant and its status coelesticus, &c.).

This distinction (not necessarily in terms too) follows Morin as far as I can remember. I'll try to find out.

And now the same in Zoller's own and far better than mine words:

Thus, the term ?outcome? may be best understood as indicating what results from a given house?s promise. In the case of the 1st house, we can discuss this in terms of motivation, the native?s actions and desires. The ascendant ruler can be viewed as indicating the methods used to realize [to fulfil or to put into practice] the promise of the house. In the case of the other houses, we put aside all such psychology and speak of results, outcomes and causes.

In the doctrine of Morin and his follower Zoller every house can provide results or outcomes (by its ruler as we know) but it can also be the cause of these results, if only ruled and its ruler being in another house.

There is a lot more I should like to discuss, but now I hasten to advise you of what is perhaps helpful for your understanding.

Johannes

Skyscript Astrology Forum

House Rulership in Traditional Astrology