Skyscript Astrology Forum

Flicking through old correspondance with Al H. Morrison (1916-1995), I came across some material on the planetary rulerships of houses that he distributed in the late 80's. I thought it might be of some interest or a topic for discussion. Please appreciate Morrison's rather 'wacky' manner of putting things over:

Al H. Morrison on Planetary Rulerships of Houses

"- The usual theory of planetary rulerships of houses repeats an error made by the Greeks when they codifiedseveral prior astrologies into a single rational system.

There is no such thing as any natural planetary rulerships of houses, as such.

Ptolemy entrenched this error by not understanding the difference between signs and houses, and mixing them up. Ptolemy was not any profound astrologer, but a copycat encyclopedist.

However, from astrologers of a time much earlier, non-Greek, see this one. No matter which house the Sun is in, put an additional Sun outside the wheel. Then in the adjacent houses, put in Moons, outside the wheel, then on past them, two Mercurys likewise, then two Venus', two Mars', two Jupiters, and that leaves one only slot for Saturn, opposite the house of the Sun.

You will find a strong planetary influence lifelong in the affairs of the houses. I don't progress this one. It came from a culture which apperntly didn't progress charts.

None of this has anything to do with the rulerships of Signs. Let that theory stand, and do not try to have Chiron, the comet, rule any sign.
External links: About Al H. Morrison
Morrison's comment on San Francisco '89 Earthquake

nice surprise seeing Al H's name -- I had several running arguments with him before he departed --

that looks like his idiosyncratic version of the Thema Mundi chart

I don?t think this should be in the traditional forum, Andrew, this is modern astrology. It probably should be in the natal or philosophy forum

Yuzuru,

A knee-jerk response, don't you think? I can well imagine your shudders of horror whenever traditional astrology is questioned. The post belongs in traditional because it's about a foundational practice of traditional astrology.

Hi, kirk

I don?t know how you imagine my behavior, but I personally don?t identify myself with the image, and neither think that my personality is a point on the matter at hand. Whoever wants to question traditional astrology in their free time, they can have my blessings.

There is traditional astrology and there are other things, like vedic, esoteric, new age, jungian, etc.

A post of a modern astrologer who doesn?t agree with traditional astrology is not about traditional astrology, the same way that a post of sceptic that negates astrology is not a post about astrology, and will not be accepted on skyscript, unless it is properly adressed and in the phylosophy forum.

Besides that, from the forum guidelines:

Although there are mundane and natal forums, these topics will be covered here, but from strictly a traditional viewpoint. Along the same lines, I do not believe this is an appropriate place for, ?which one is better traditional or modern? debates.

so, where you see my "shudeers of horror whenever traditional astrology is questioned" I prefer to see the matter as an organizational problem of the particular ideologies of the forum.

Best regards

Morrison wrote:However, from astrologers of a time much earlier, non-Greek, see this one.

Robert Hand said that the thing about Al H. Morrison was that he had probably forgotten more astrology than everyone else knew all together. Take the pun. Having visited Morrison's Head Quarters, or rather 'Den', in New York, I know this to be true. Morrison was well versed in classical astrology and used to pick up fragments of things long time forgotten. Morrison provided reprints of old texts before Ballentrae started with their invaluable work. I have several of Morrison's reprints. Including Al Birumi, that like William Lilly's Christian Astrology was unavailable for quite some time. Then there was the contact between Al H. Morrison and Olivia Barclay.

Morrison does not quote his source, but there are so many participants at this forum that are well versed in classical astrology that they might recognise the system and know where it came from.

Yuzuru,

The critiques and criticisms from outside the group serve a valid and useful purpose, such as prodding us to view things from another angle.


If a magic circle of protection is desired for the traditional forum I will try to go along, but ultimately will probably fail to keep my mouth shut.

Hi, kirk

the power of criticism can be done either from an internal view or an external view. An external view can be neutral, panoramic and insightful, or can be damaging, biased and ill-informed.

Thats why criticism inside of the paradigm goes inside the proper forum. Criticism outside of the paradigm should be posted on the philosophy forum.

There are a lot of forums out there that are exclusively about modern astrology. People who do exclusively traditional astrology have the right to have a forum to participate without having to defend against the "constructive criticism" of others.

In the philosophy forum, only people who want to participate in these kind of "constructive discussion" will engage in the usual knife-fight.

The same would apply if Deb one day decides to do a "Vedic Astrology" sub-forum. No sense in allowing people to start threads saying "oh, but how can you use the wrong zodiac and expect it to work. Don?t you people know that the tropical zodiac is the REAL zodiac?"

We're flying off into irrelevant generalities. The Morrison quote isn't against traditional astrology, just what Mr. Morrison calls an error regarding the houses. I misread him - I found your response much more interesting. :

There is no such thing as any natural planetary rulerships of houses, as such.

Ptolemy entrenched this error by not understanding the difference between signs and houses, and mixing them up. Ptolemy was not any profound astrologer, but a copycat encyclopedist.

His statements about Ptolemy reflect plenty of others that can be found here.

While I feel wierd defending Ptolemy, calling him a "copycat encyclopedist" isn't seriously defensible.

I could say something snarky about "what difference between signs and houses?" but I'll leave that alone.

Other then the "co-significators" of houses that Lilly mentions in Christian Astrology, is there any other old source for such a doctrine?

Why I do have the feeling that this:

However, from astrologers of a time much earlier, non-Greek

is not going to be the Egyptians or Babylonians but something crazy like Atlantians or Lemurians? Can someone disabuse me of this? Please, Andrew Bevan, is there more to this?

Other then that, I don't see a definitive discussion about Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques.

I don't have any of Morrison's stuff anymore - regrettably - but I'm fairly certain that it wasn't Atlantis or Lemuria.

He was an outstanding astrologer, including his predictive work - like the World Trade Centre in New York was going to be hit by an aeroplane.

The man knew his stuff. He used to write for astrology magazines back in the distant past when quite a lot of them were worth reading.

He was a researcher, and he didn't limit his research to classical, but he definitely knew classical.

is not going to be the Egyptians or Babylonians but something crazy like Atlantians or Lemurians? Can someone disabuse me of this? Please, Andrew Bevan, is there more to this?

With respect, this post did not intend to go beyond the boundaries of traditional astrology, nor be the cause of any brawl.

Morrison took me to the top of the WTC on Nov. 8. 1984 and predicted that someone would try to fly a Boing through it, and he showed me eclipse maps and pointed to particluars some 61 years BC that he only had half answers to.

I respected him as a source to knowledge that I had no access to. Maybe someone among Skyscripts' readers and contributors recognizes the system Morrison makes reference to? I'' send a few PM around the block and see if anyone can make sense of it.

Morrison used Barclay's conception of traditional house rulership as the front cover of one of his additions of the CAO TIMES.