46
Olivia wrote:Johannes, I think the problem is that Jogi is studying with Zoeller, so has to at least comprehend Zoeller's theories, whether he ends up using them fully in his own work or no.
Olivia, you are surely right, studying Zoller is presumably a problem, if you want to understand Morin.

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.

But before you decide, remember my questions above, please (posted today, 9:59 pm).

47
I've taken Zoller's course, and the way I understand is that it depends on the perspective.

For instance, let's say the ruler of the 7th is in the 2nd, and the ruler of the 2nd is in the 10th. We'll assume they're dignified and otherwise not afflicted. You can say marriage will result in good finances. If you are looking at finances, you can say good finances come about from marriage and career. Maybe the combination will affect things. Overall, there would be a connection between marriage, money, and career.

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.

48
I think there is a possible problem here, of trying to fit astrology into our perceptions and desires, and not fit ourselves into it.

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.

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.
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com

49
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

50
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

51
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

52
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".

53
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.

54
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.

55
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.

56
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...

57
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