skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Al H. Morrison on Planetary Rulerships of Houses
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Andrew Bevan



Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 4676
Location: Oslo, Norway

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 8:47 am    Post subject: Al H. Morrison on Planetary Rulerships of Houses Reply with quote

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
_________________
http://www.astronor.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
SGFoxe



Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 283
Location: Chicago, IL

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
yuzuru



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 1395

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I donīt think this should be in the traditional forum, Andrew, this is modern astrology. It probably should be in the natal or philosophy forum
_________________
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yuzuru,

A knee-jerk response, don't you think? Confused I can well imagine your shudders of horror whenever traditional astrology is questioned. Laughing The post belongs in traditional because it's about a foundational practice of traditional astrology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yuzuru



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 1395

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi, kirk

I donīt know how you imagine my behavior, but I personally donīt 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 doesnīt 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:

Quote:
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
_________________
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Andrew Bevan



Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 4676
Location: Oslo, Norway

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
http://www.astronor.com


Last edited by Andrew Bevan on Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


Secret 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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yuzuru



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 1395

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Donīt you people know that the tropical zodiac is the REAL zodiac?"
_________________
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Laughing :

Quote:
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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GR



Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 451
Location: USA

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Very Happy

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:
Quote:
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.
_________________
Gabe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Olivia



Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Posts: 866

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Bevan



Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 4676
Location: Oslo, Norway

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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.
_________________
http://www.astronor.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Estebon_Duarte



Joined: 19 May 2009
Posts: 134
Location: West Coast USA

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

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.



it is my understanding that the August 99 eclipse was the chart showing the events of 9/11, it would indeed be interesting to know more about his prediction (or at least delineation) techniques.
_________________
Western Predictive Astrology by Estebon Duarte Independent Researcher AMA MACAA
Natal Chart & Annual Solar Revolution Reports
www.organic-astrology.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Bevan



Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 4676
Location: Oslo, Norway

Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
it is my understanding that the August 99 eclipse was the chart showing the events of 9/11, it would indeed be interesting to know more about his prediction (or at least delineation) techniques.

This is not entirely off-topic in the regards that it refers to the question of "what Morrison knew'. His WTC prediction was based upon the founding charts of those buildings. He did not know when the event would occur. We could form a separate thread that investigated into matter, but this discussion might more properly belong in the mundane section.

My reason for starting this thread here is due to the rather interesting discussion going on about the 8th house, but I didn't feel it fit under that heading.
_________________
http://www.astronor.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Atlantean



Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 396

Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bevan,

Regardless of where this thread ultimately needs to be filed, I want to thank you for taking the time to post that idea. These are exactly the kinds of things that I enjoy finding on astrology forums. (ie. new ideas, old ideas with a twist, ideas that just might work even though they SEEM to come out of left-field, etc.)

I noticed in one of the links that you included that a quindecile (165°) aspect between Uranus and Chiron was a KEY ELEMENT. I find this quite interesting and personally amusing, as I use the quindecile aspect much in natal astrology. As you likely know more of the history than I, may I ask you what source the quindecile first comes to us from? (I do understand the 11/24ths harmonic implications, but I mean the actual isolation of the quindecile as an important aspect) Also, related, do we know where the idea that quindeciles relate to compulsion (in natal astrology) comes from? The "oldest" source that I have for this idea is Noel Tyl.

Now, please, before questions are raised as to where my questions need to be posted, understand that I ask this question HERE because this is the thread that SPAWNED my questions. Additionally, as I am asking for older sources for some ideas, I believe that it somehow is appropriate to ask on the Traditional Forum where people are more knowledgeable about original sources of ideas.

Again, thanks, Bevan.

As far as I am concerned, I am happy to read what you write wherever it happens to find itself. Wink

Peace

TMC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated