AstroNovice wrote:ah....that could be contributing to my confusion, my utter inability to do math. I suppose for the time being then, naibod it is

Right, the equation of time (often called a 'time key' or similar) is another area of contention; I forgot to mention that. But really, the difference between Naibod and 'Ptolemy' (a degree for a year) is rather minor, at least up to the native's middle age (the effect is cumulative). Around the age of 70, it will amount to a year.

Directions can be taxing to calculate by hand, but they are not difficult to understand conceptually, even if you're no good at maths (I'm not a natural, either). They are based on the simple phenomenon of the earth turning on its axis -- or, to put it in older and more observational terms, the celestial sphere turning around the earth. The time it takes one planet or point to reach the same proportional distance to the horizon and meridian that another planet or point had at birth is the arc of direction between the two points. Simple.

Where Morin differed most from the 'old astrologers' that he often criticized was not in the mathematics but in his rejection of universal significators, of the terms, etc -- things that are not rooted in directions as such but rather in Morin's grand scheme of a reformed and 'streamlined' astrology.

Although this criticism of Morin is fairly common, it isn't exactly true - but there is some merit to it. Morin didn't reject universal significators. He rejected the idea that they could mean anything they were associated with in all charts. And he wasn't the only one who thought this. His example in Book 21 is one of the few places he quotes Cardan approvingly for realizing it is not possible for every planet to mean all things in every chart. He agreed that, for example, the Moon signifies the wife, the mother, the daughters, the maid servants, the body, the moral character, etc, but they did not mean all those things all of the time in all charts.

Cardan as quoted by Morin in Section 1 Book 21 page 12"

"What then must be the condition of the Moon in the horoscope of one who wife had died in childbirth, but himself lived a long life who had many healthy daughters, but also maid-servants who ran away, who had a sound body but a mother who died young , and who himself showed poor moral character?"

He also gives his own opinion that if it were true that the Moon signified the mother, wife and daughter, that when a direction hit the Moon whatever happened to the Mother would happen to the daughter and the wife, which of course we know from experience is not true.

So the Moon means all those things, but not in each chart. In his philosophy,each planet sends forth its influence equally and without discrimination throughout the whole world. The sign tells us how that influence is sent, but the houses tell us what area of life. So the Moon is the feminine principle and the body and the moral character. The Moon, say in Cancer shows the strength of those things. But the house tells us precisely where that influence plays out. If the Moon is in the 7th it represents the wife, not the mother. In the fifth it represents the daughters not the body. In the 10th it represents the mother not the moral character.

In this way we can accurately and clearly see what is going on in the life. Does this work better than the "other" way of looking at it? I'm not sure. It should for it makes more sense It is helpful as it is more precise. I've noticed that astrologers seem to try to grab on to universal significators when they can't find anywhere else what they know is there. His mother died. Hmmm Oh look Saturn squared his natal Moon in the natal 11th - whew.

Now the system he proposes is a bit more involved than what I've stated above. I'm simplifying in order to make the point that he did agree with the overall concept of universal signification just not universal application in all charts. As Martin says, he streamlined it.

Tom wrote:Although this criticism of Morin is fairly common, it isn't exactly true - but there is some merit to it. Morin didn't reject universal significators. He rejected the idea that they could mean anything they were associated with in all charts.

To clarify, I didn't state it as a criticism, simply as a matter of fact. The idea that a significator has the same significations in all charts, no matter what, is, to me, the definition of 'universal significator'. But Morin did keep something of the universal significatorship in his idea of analogy.

For what it's worth, I think Morin has many good points. But then I have a certain weakness for these cantankerous characters (Worsdale is another one).