Mcajob wrote:

I am following this with interest because Morin has influenced me in his approach to astrology but whatever his contemporaries thought about him what do moderns make of him?

Hi Mathew,

But where is this collective tribe of 'moderns' you refer to? Ultimately, I think we are all moderns whether we choose to admit it or not. We simply draw inspiration from different astrological antecedents through the long story of our tradition.

Morin's sometimes arrogant, opinionated tone is not the most attractive for modern readers used to an inclusive, open minded tolerance of intellectual diversity. Still, he was a very serious, committed and genuinely innovative astrologer. One might even say a 'conviction astrologer'. Very different from the cultural relativism of our day. That style of delineation may not appeal to many moderns. But others may find it a refreshing change. Your clearly an example of such a modern.

Mjacob wrote:

If we take the basic idea that Morin thought Reason should be applied to assessing old techniques then so be it. If that makes him a father a modern astrology then I must question that. In my own limited experience whenever I have brought Reason into a question of Astrology I am met with blank indifference. It seems that the very concept is alien to modern practitioners.

I never suggested Morin was 'the Father' of modern astrology. That would be pushing the point way too far. I used the term 'Grandfather'. But I should add I was being a little tongue in cheek. There is clearly no direct intellectual lineage here at all. At best we can only show an influence on 20th century French astrology.

I accept your point that much of modern astrology isn't that concerned with naturalistic or empirical concerns. Outlooks such as Psychological astrology or Karmic astrology rather confirm this. Still modern astrology is not monolithic. We have approaches like Cosmobiology, Out of Bounds Theory, or Astrolocality that are certainly not that nebulous or relativistic.

I suppose the quality I was picking up in Morin that I think resonates to this day was his inconoclastic attitude to his predecessors. He wasn't shy about sweeping away traditional astrological techniques if he couldn't make sense of them. We mostly think of Kepler in this context today. He certainly went much further than Morin. Both men shared a common vision of reforming astrology to bring it more in line with what they saw as naturalistic reality.

Incidentally, if anyone wants to discuss fixed orbs rather than Morin it would be appreciated!

Mark

Dear Mark
I have I been in this game about as long as you so I hope that I am permitted to make a general observation about Astrology today. we do not want to see me naming names to justify any criticisms do we?

I think Morin had a sense of humour but in matters of taste there is no final arbitrator.

I seem to remember Morin considered orbs in relation to house cusps as well.

If we compare the use of orbs in aspects to how close a planet has to be to an angle I know someone who gives close numbers in his books but allows whole signs in his lectures. I suggest that in Astrology the final arbiter of such questions is the astrologer her or his self if that is of any use
Regards and sorry for going off topic
Matthew

Mjacob wrote:

Dear Mark
I have I been in this game about as long as you so I hope that I am permitted to make a general observation about Astrology today. we do not want to see me naming names to justify any criticisms do we?

Hi Mathew,

I have no doubt you can provide plenty of examples to back up your view!
I am not in the business of trying to defend the sloppy excesses amongst current practitioners. Please though lets avoid yet another discussion on the merits of traditional vs modern astrology. I am sure most people on this forum are sympathetic to your view. Its just not what this thread is about. I suppose I lighted the flame suggesting a link between Morin and modern astrology. So its my fault for raising that analogy here.

Mjacob wrote:

If we compare the use of orbs in aspects to how close a planet has to be to an angle I know someone who gives close numbers in his books but allows whole signs in his lectures. I suggest that in Astrology the final arbiter of such questions is the astrologer her or his self if that is of any use

Sure. This thread is more an invitation to unearth some interesting historical sources on this approach as Wade suggested earlier. While I happen to use fixed orbs I am not trying to generate a debate on the benefits of one approach vs another.

Mjacob wrote:

sorry for going off topic

Hardly. I think I and to a lesser extent Tom are the real offenders here not you. An even worse offence in my case as I created the thread topic!

Mark

I'll get back to the rest later on. For now though:

Rather it is based on the quantitative fact that Morin personally rejected or reformed a whole host of astrological techniques that came his way.

This is what I disagree with. But to be clear he is, I suppose, idiosyncratic is exactly correct, only if we define that as "odd," which which is a synonym for "unusual." He didn't reject things outright. He rejected some of the conclusions of previous astrologers without dismissing the premise. This is the point I was trying to make with my example above, of the general significators of the Moon. He agrees with the premise that the Moon represents, among other things, women in the life. He disagreed with the conclusion that therefore, the Moon represents every woman in the life in every chart, no matter where it is. I don't see that as an idiosyncrasy but rather a refinement. There are other examples. But we split hairs.

I would argue that he is within the mainstream in that he doesn't outright change what came before as did, say, ALan Leo and Marc Edmond Jones or Dane Rudhyar. If he argued Mars was sometimes like Jupiter or squares sometimes like trines that would be idiosyncratic. His viewpoint isn't that much of a departure from what came before, when it does depart at all. In other words he is taking the same things and looking at them, in his view, logically. I suppose that might meet the denotation of idiosyncrasy, but I don't think it meets the connotation, which I believe is closer to "odd." He isn't odd. He may be wrong, but he's not odd.

I also don't think his lack of following is relevant. That might have as much to do with timing and writing in Latin than it does with what he said.

Hi Tom,

This is becoming a thread about Morin rather than the topic I opened on so I will generally let your right to reply go without further response in the hope we can get back on topic.

All I would recap here is that Morin ultimately rejected or reformed a whole host of techniques used by his predecessors and contemporaries. That is a hard fact not an opinion or interpretation on my part. I guess we disagree how to describe that difference.

Mark

All I would recap here is that Morin ultimately rejected or reformed a whole host of techniques used by his predecessors and contemporaries. That is a hard fact not an opinion or interpretation on my part. I guess we disagree how to describe that difference.

You're right. Let's move on.

...trying to bring it back to the focal point of orbs..

perhaps as i view so much of astrology as an art and subjective in nature, the question on orbs will always be a personal choice until someone can prove differently.. i was never made aware of the way astrologers from the past thought about orbs - moiety orbs - or this new descriptive term - non-reciprocal fixed aspects orbs, until i started learning of alternative views towards astrology.. i have always been curious about alternative views which is what brought me to this forum and an interest in these alternative viewpoints coming from older sources that were unavailable until recently.

the use of fixed orbs for prediction is very common.. 1/2 to 1 1/2 degree orb, but preferably less and overlapped with the different methods astrologers can use to arrive at a prediction which would include exact aspects - no orbs - or orbs of minutes. obviously this can't work for natal astrology as well, but i have never found myself having a fixed orb policy, so much as trying to intuit what is more relevant in the chart.

tom makes some comments earlier in the thread that i would challenge but it would just be a distraction to discuss them here.. i use alternative aspects to traditional aspects and i have adopted the ideas of cosmobiology which to my understanding involve very narrow orbs - a couple of degrees or less. perhaps with a ptolemaic aspect i could stretch it out to 4 or 5 degrees.. maybe an aspect involving the sun and moon could be viewed differently. i don't have a fixed concept towards the use of orbs and i don't think making aspects the be all and end all of everything is the way to go either - one of the criticisms from tom towards 'modern' astrology.. i'd like to think as duke ellington put it - and i am simplifying it - there are 2 kinds of music - good and bad.. i think the modern verses traditional thing is a philosophical distraction..finding what works and what doesn't and improving the art and engaging with fellow travelers who all appreciate being involved with astrology - is the way to go..

i know the idea of how to approach orbs is a burden for new students to astrology.. i don't have an answer for that! keep an open mind and learn as much as possible by continuing to practice the art while also continuing to learn.. off my soap box now..

James_M wrote:

I use alternative aspects to traditional aspects and i have adopted the ideas of cosmobiology which to my understanding involve very narrow orbs

Hi James,

Maybe I should clarify here that I didn't open this thread for a wide ranging discussion of orbs in modern compared to traditional astrology. Not least as the word orb means something entirely different in modern astrology as it is not derived from a planet but aspect type.

While we may be using the same term of ''fixed orbs'' we clearly dont mean the same thing.

I am hoping to restrict discussion here to traditional approaches to aspects. In particular what I was hoping for was that we could discuss some historical sources on the use of planetary orbs. If anyone has anything to bring to the table on that I would really like to hear from them.

I do think it would be interesting to discuss the philosophical and cosmological origins and development of planetary orb theory from the ancient to renaissance period.

In that context I have found links to this book that looks very interesting in the context of our discussion: Planets, Stars, and Orbs
The Medieval Cosmos, 1200?1687, by Edward Grant

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/su ... s-12001687

You can access quite a lot of it from google books. I will not put the link in as its tends to skew the forum page.

The book makes me reflect that while we often hotly debate technique we often ignore the much wider Cosmology that underlined the development of the idea of planetary orbs. This subject is as much an historical and philosophical one as a technical one.

Thanks

Mark