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.

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.

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.

Peace

TMC

"- 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.

The scientific consensus is that horoscopic astrology emerged from a single person or a small group of people. I'm inclined to believe myself it was originally also of a revelatory nature (primarily due to ideas like this).

The scientific consensus is that horoscopic astrology emerged from a single person or a small group of people.

The scientific consensus? Does it really extend much beyond Schmidt and his merry band? Is there even enough historical evidence for such certainty?

Kirk wrote:

The scientific consensus is that horoscopic astrology emerged from a single person or a small group of people.

The scientific consensus? Does it really extend much beyond Schmidt and his merry band? Is there even enough historical evidence for such certainty?

The Schmidt project as far as I know was at least in part motivated by the previous philological research of people like Pingree (who at least was of this opinion as far as I know). Neugebauer made the originator Hellenistic as far as I know primarily due to the statistical number of surviving horoscopes (most of which come from a single person, Valens). But some maybe still try to find support for a Babylonian origin archeologically. Others more recently (as in the book The Arabic Hermes) say Pingree glossed over the possibility of a Mesopotamian origin too much, attributing such philological influences only vaguely to some surving neoplatonists in Harran.

Kirk wrote:

The scientific consensus is that horoscopic astrology emerged from a single person or a small group of people.

The scientific consensus? Does it really extend much beyond Schmidt and his merry band? Is there even enough historical evidence for such certainty?

Yes, Kirk, we "Merry Men" do seem to tend that way.

Hi CJ,

There are ideas about it floating around out there and possibly some evidence for it, but I found ?scientific consensus? to be misleading. Stating the case in that way can result in spreading poor standards of historical understanding among those who don't look carefully enough. I know I'm maybe being picky and taking the discussion in a different direction, but I think we need to be careful in our discussions and not grant these things of long ago and far away a more certain status than they are entitled to.

Yes, Kirk, we "Merry Men" do seem to tend that way.

Gabe,

That's "merry band". We are inclusive here.

I find Morrison's 'Ladder of House Rulership' intriguing in comparison with the 'Ladder of Sign Rulership' through similarities and differences. But when I think about it, actually it is not a system of house rulership in the strictest sence but rather a division of the Solar power and influence as observed through the houses but according to the position of the Sun. A sort of Solar Spectrum?

Kirk wrote:Hi CJ,

There are ideas about it floating around out there and possibly some evidence for it, but I found ?scientific consensus? to be misleading. Stating the case in that way can result in spreading poor standards of historical understanding among those who don't look carefully enough. I know I'm maybe being picky and taking the discussion in a different direction, but I think we need to be careful in our discussions and not grant these things of long ago and far away a more certain status than they are entitled to.

Well nobody believes the original astrology was a syncretism of many different astrologies, so in that regard at least there is scientific consensus.

Kirk wrote:

The scientific consensus is that horoscopic astrology emerged from a single person or a small group of people.

The scientific consensus? Does it really extend much beyond Schmidt and his merry band? Is there even enough historical evidence for such certainty?

Kirk, how can you dare to doubt this and ask for historical evidence? Even the great - and critical - Morin knew, that

"veram astrologiam, ab Adamo & Noe posteris traditam"
[the real astrology was bequeathed to posterity by Adam & Noah].

Even if there are qualified doubts that the Greeks knew Adam & Noah: It is for certain that horoscopic astrolgoy emerged from two persons: Adam & Noah! And Robert Schmidt knows this fact without doubt.

Johannes