Skyscript Astrology Forum

My own problem with Morin's work is that he seems to want intellectual and scientific recognition.

True, but his motives were not entirely based on personal recognition. I get the impression he was trying to put astrology on a sound "scientific" footing for his day. Modern science ran over him.

He naturally has to take a lot of swipes at older astrologers and older ideas, but it's as if he doesn't realise that (scientifically speaking) his own hill is also made of crumbling sand.

Stubbornly so. But I do see that his criticisms, particularly of Cardan and Ptolemy, are theoretical, and not criticisms of their skill. He tries, and to what extent he succeeds is up to the reader, to put astrology on some kind of material footing, i.e. it works because it is part of nature. He went to his grave (in 1656) refusing to accept the remotest possibility that the Earth revolved about the Sun even thought it was a hot topic of his day.

His problems with some of the ideas were, in my opinion, overdue. Ptolemy was accepted as a near deity among medieval and Renaissance astrologers (and later), and today, critically thinking astrologers seem to prefer Valens and question whether or not Ptolemy ever cast a chart in his life. In this way, those people would have more in common with Morin than they realize. There is nothing wrong with taking a critical look at any subject. We may ultimately disagree with Morin, but he performed a valuable service by at least thinking about some of astrology's maxims.

As to craft, he also provided a plethora of techniques based on the logic of his viewpoint. Book 23 on revolutions has as much or more valuable information pertaining to technique than anything else I've read. Lilly, a true craftsman, barely mentions the topic. Gadbury devotes a few pages to it. Morin gives it great importance, and in so doing gives us a logical method of prediction. A lot of moderns would benefit from his work in this area, too.

He lived at a very unfortunate time for the nature of the work he produced.

His timing was atrocious. He never saw his book in print and he spent some 30 years writing it. Even after it was published, it was largely ignored. Still he is more fun to read than any old astrologer outside of Lilly. More importantly, he may not be right all of the time; in fact he may not be right much of the time, but he always makes the reader think. His thoughts on cazimi are worth reading, even if we ultimately disregard them.

I'll be home Late Thursday night or Friday afternoon. I'm not sure yet. If I don't post his thoughts on cazimi by Sunday drop me a line and get after me.

Tom

Couldn't the Cazimi and Combust issues etc. be something that remained from the old belief that Moon and Planets died when the were in conjunction with the sun and reborn after it?

Hi Eddy

That is the case, without doubt.

Deb wrote:Hi Eddy

That is the case, without doubt.

Hi Deb,
So, now we know that the planets don't really 'die' or 'burn', it seems logic to me that this would affect our view. I wonder what Morin's thoughts actually were.

Tom wrote:He tries, and to what extent he succeeds is up to the reader, to put astrology on some kind of material footing, i.e. it works because it is part of nature.

I like this view. Although the symbolic view often is of great use when nature isn't (yet) understood, I prefer this 'natural' astrology.

So, now we know that the planets don't really 'die' ...

But of course they do. Have you not heard that there is a New Moon every month?

Deb wrote:

So, now we know that the planets don't really 'die' ...

But of course they do. Have you not heard that there is a New Moon every month?

Are you sure? But where on earth do they get all that cheese from to make a new one every month?

Hello Eddy,

Although the symbolic view often is of great use when nature isn't (yet) understood, I prefer this 'natural' astrology

I guess it depends how we define 'natural'. Fundamentally, all astrology works on the basis of symbolism. However, I agree that astrology is especially convincing when it combines the symbolic and natural together.

In that respect I am unclear why you have a problem with the idea of combustion? Historically, of course we can relate this back to ancient Egyptian and Babylonian visual astrology that viewed the planet or star obscured by the light of the Sun as in the realm of the underworld 'duat'.

Once you accept the basic astrological premise combustion is an astrological teaching that relates strongly to what we can see with the naked eye. It is therefore more naturalistic than much of the rest of astrological theory.

We can all observe a planet or star disappear in close proximity to the Sun and re-appear (helically rise) after separating from the Sun. The light of a planet or star in this phase is completely obliterated by the light of the Sun. How much more natural do you want?

In a post-Keplerian Heliocentric worldwview we understand the role of the sun is even more important than traditionally appreciated. The idea that the sun can operate as malefic when planets are in too close a proximity is a logically derived symbolism considering the heat of the sun. I accept cazimi is a purely symbolic notion. Much of astrological theory obviously remains like this. However, I regard combustion as much more fundamental to the whole basis of astrology.

Unfortunately, the original visual basis of this teaching became rationalised into symbolic standardised notions such as 'Under the Rays' and 'Combust' which had fixed degrees of influence irrespective of the planet involved or the visual reality in the sky.

There are undeniably several occasions when this very naturalistic astrology comes into conflict with purely symbolic astrological concepts. One example, is of course the notion of cazimi where being so close to the sun fortifies rather than weakens the planet. A second example is the idea that a planet cannot be combust when in a different sign from the Sun. Thirdly, is the notion that a planet is not affected by combustion when in its sign of domicile rulership. In all these instances the real planet is still invisible but the symbolism claims something different is happening because of the influence of the signs involved or proximity to the Sun. Inevitably, these more symbolic areas are points where astrologers themselves can disagree.

MarkC wrote:I guess it depends how we define 'natural'. Fundamentally, all astrology works on the basis of symbolism. However, I agree that astrology is especially convincing when it combines the symbolic and natural together.

Throughout the ages both cocepts have been used. Even the ancient opponents of (judicial) astrology like Pico still believed in some natural effect in cases of medical astrology. Thomas Aquinas accepted the 'influence' of the planets on the physical level.

Here's a quote from Rochberg's article in the conclusion.

Rochberg's article wrote:The differences
between the perception and understanding of celestial
phenomena between the two cultures cannot be overestimated.
The Babylonians regarded celestial phenomena
as potential signs (as they did all natural
phenomena) in accordance with a view of nature as
inseparable from the divine. Adherents of Greek
astrology, on the other hand, saw the celestial phenomena
as causes in accordance with a view that
physical events had determinate natural causes, disassociated
from gods (often, however, retaining the
belief in the possibility of divine intervention).

Source: Elements of the Babylonian Contribution to Hellenistic Astrology
F. Rochberg-Halton
Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 108, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1988), pp. 51-62
Published by: American Oriental Society
page 62.

My preference is more inclined to the Greek view. I prefere this one to a mere symbolic view. Sure humanity needs symbols but I think there is a risk that depending too much on symbolism in astrology opens the way to less realistic things. An example is the discovery of hundreds of thousands of asteroids since the 19th century. Most of them got a name related to some classic myth. What many modern astrologers do is using that certain myth to delineate the meaning of an asteroid in a chart. I find that hard to accept.

On the other hand I can't explain how the natural astrology 'works'. Seen from a pure scientific (as sofar we know now) point of view astrology cannot work, but I don't accept that either otherwise I wouldn't be here on the forum .

Visual reality is interesting but in some occasions this means that a planet like Mercury will be 'free' from the Sun only a few days or weeks per year when at high latitudes like Iceland etc.

There are undeniably several occasions when this very naturalistic astrology comes into conflict with purely symbolic astrological concepts. One example, is of course the notion of cazimi where being so close to the sun fortifies rather than weakens the planet. A second example is the idea that a planet cannot be combust when in a different sign from the Sun.

These issues also puzzle me and I can imagine Morin's thoughts (as pointed out by Tom) on this.

The most attractive approach I find is a geometrical approach and the comparison of aspects with musical intervals of tones.

MarC,

As we all know cazimi means literally "in the heart of the Sun." Any planet that forms a conjunction with the Sun within 16' (arc minutes) of partile (exactitude) is said to be Cazimi, literally engulfed and fortified by Sol .

There is one exception I know of that Ganivet, a professional astrologer miss in 1341 A.D. on the Dean's heath related horary. If the Moon is Cazimi it is Not a blessed but more like a cursed interpretation.

The McCain election related horary I asked months before the election came to be dissasterous rather than my original conclusion; but luckily I caught it in a document a few weeks prior.

Clinton Garrett Soule

I have Venus at 3degrees 22 minutes of Cancer and the Sun at 3 degrees 26 minutes Cancer. I can be very charming but have no love life.

Hello, Debbie

Would you be so kind and give us your birth data,so we can analyze the whole chart? I'm sure it would be very interesting to see why this cazimi Venus doesn't show its alleged ultra-benefic side

cor scorpii wrote:Hello, Debbie

Would you be so kind and give us your birth data,so we can analyze the whole chart? I'm sure it would be very interesting to see why this cazimi Venus doesn't show its alleged ultra-benefic side

Debbie Clarke wrote:I have Venus at 3degrees 22 minutes of Cancer and the Sun at 3 degrees 26 minutes Cancer. I can be very charming but have no love life.

Hi Debbie, hi cor scorpii,

even without horoscope (even though it would be very interesting to see it) we should realize that an essentially peregrine Sun cannot give any virtue to Venus, who by the way has only the dignity of her own face thus also not beeing that strong in dignities for 'love life' probably.

Even if the Sun would be very strong accidentally Venus would be made accidentally strong by him but could not gain any virtues by cazimi in my understanding.

Johannes