25 by Mark Nice you noticed, because I have Mercury in Saturn sign Hard to miss really as I have one myself About Mercury in Jupiter signs, it seems to me that in the better cases gives over confidence. I wouldn't say that about Darwin or Copernicus. Quite the reverse actually. Why Galileo had so many problems with the Church? Because he insisted in entering in theological business. Science was not enough for him. Is this explained by Mercury in Pisces or his stubborn headed Tuscan background? Anyway it's obvious that it's necessary to see every nativity in detail, quality of the mind depends on a lot of factors. Thats undeniably true. I just like to stir things up here . Mark As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly
26 by Tom RE: people with Mercury in debility It might be instructive to study their charts.... It would be and I would begin with the condition of the dispositor. Mercury in Pisces, for example is going to be affected by the condition and position of Jupiter. Looking at Mercury in Pisces and then concluding that it is a hopeless situation because Mercury is in detriment and fall, leaves out way too much. For example Copernicus' Mercury in Pisces is disposited by angular Jupiter in Sagittarius. Jupiter is connected to the ASC by square and Mercury rules that ASC. Jupiter is conjunct the Moon, which is the exaltation ruler of Copernicus MC. I'm sure Mercury in Pisces manifested somehow in Copernicus' life, but Jupiter was always there to help.
27 by Mark RE: people with Mercury in debility MarkC Quote: It might be instructive to study their charts.... It would be and I would begin with the condition of the dispositor. Mercury in Pisces, for example is going to be affected by the condition and position of Jupiter. Looking at Mercury in Pisces and then concluding that it is a hopeless situation because Mercury is in detriment and fall, leaves out way too much. For example Copernicus' Mercury in Pisces is disposited by angular Jupiter in Sagittarius. Jupiter is connected to the ASC by square and Mercury rules that ASC. Jupiter is conjunct the Moon, which is the exaltation ruler of Copernicus MC. I'm sure Mercury in Pisces manifested somehow in Copernicus' life, but Jupiter was always there to help. Thanks Tom, That may well help to explain this apparent paradox. However, not everyone here has strong dispositors. For example check out Thomas Jefferson and Sir Edmund Halley's chart (Jupiter in Virgo and Gemini respectively). Here is the Astrodatabank links to the charts I have mentioned if anyone wants to do some more research on this topic with actual nativities. I cant claim to have done a lot of research yet but it already appears to me that a large number of the greatest minds in astronomy had Mercury in either Sagittarius or Pisces. Copernicus. http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Cop ... ,_Nicolaus Galileo http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Galileo,_Galilei Sir Isaac Newton http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Newton%2C_Sir_Isaac Sir Edmund Halley ( predicted the famous Comet reappearance named after him) http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Halley,_Edmond Thomas Jefferson http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Jefferson%2C_Thomas Charles Darwin http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Darwin%2C_Charles Marie Curie http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Curie%2C_Marie Isaac Asimov http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Asimov%2C_Isaac Last edited by Mark on Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:49 am, edited 1 time in total. As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly
28 by Mark Following Margherita's quote mentioning the strength of Mercury in the signs ruled by the malefics here are a few natal examples: Leonardo Da Vinci (Mercury In Aries) Albert Einstein (Mercury In Aries) Werner Heisenberg (Mercury In Scorpio) Werner Von Braun (Mercury in Aries) Tycho Brahe (Mercury In Capricorn) Johannes Kepler (Mercury in Capricorn) Stephen Hawkins (Mercury In Capricorn) Thomas Eddison (Mercury in Aquarius) Mark Last edited by Mark on Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total. As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly
29 by Tom That may well help to explain this apparent paradox. However, not everyone here has strong dispositors. I didn't say they did. I was only attempting to make two points: 1) That there is more to the way a planet functions than its position in a sign. 2) One place to look to learn the influence of a planet is to check out the dispositor. Also we could be looking at essentially strong planets that do not seem to manifest as we might expect. Tom
30 by Mark I didn't say they did. I was only attempting to make two points: 1) That there is more to the way a planet functions than its position in a sign. 2) One place to look to learn the influence of a planet is to check out the dispositor. I was not suggesting you thought it was that straightforward either! I was simply pointing out that there were a couple of charts that didn't fulfill that criteria that might be worth studying. Clearly if astrology could always be reduced to that level of simplicity it would be like painting by numbers! We need to look at everything in the chart relating to Mercury which includes its dispositor, aspects, reception, house placement, sect, phase, speed, anticion, link to fixed stars, lots etc. I would also be looking at the Moon too and its relationship to Mercury by aspect, dispositors etc. Ptolemy called this the quality of the soul while for later medieval astrologers it is the Lord of Manners. Also we could be looking at essentially strong planets that do not seem to manifest as we might expect. The Lord of the Geniture? Tom As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly
31 by Tom The Lord of the Geniture? The idea behind the Lord of the Geniture is that you use it; it does not use you.
32 by margherita Tom wrote:The Lord of the Geniture? The idea behind the Lord of the Geniture is that you use it; it does not use you. What wrong with the Lord of Geniture? I use too together with the Almuten. margherita Traditional astrology at http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com
33 by Mark Margherita wrote: What wrong with the Lord of Geniture? I use too together with the Almuten. Nothing as far as I can see. Although there are obviously different techniques that involve combining essential and accidental dignity such as that of Ibn Ezra or the 17th century astrologers. I quite like the more relaxed approach of Lilly and the 17th century astrologers to this issue. I agree the chart Almuten by essential dignity is useful too. Do you calculate the Almuten the medieval or Greek way? In other words do you just count the number of dignities or follow the 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 counting scale of dignities from domicile ruler to decanic face? Tom wrote: The idea behind the Lord of the Geniture is that you use it; it does not use you. Nice. It reminds of the way the Greeks regarded the Lot of Spirit. I believe John Frawley descibes the LOG as the 'Pilot of the Soul'. It will be interesting to read his book on natal astrology when it comes out. Any news on that Tom or is his book on fixed stars now coming out first? Mark As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly
34 by Tom This is getting a bit slippery, but I think we can bring it back on track. We started, at least in this section of the thread, by noting that some very smart people have an essentially weak Mercury. The implication, not directly stated, is that this is inconsistent with our astrology. It was then pointed out that there is a lot more to intelligence and accomplishment (to me intelligence is potential; accomplishment is what is done with that potential) than Mercury, which not only explains the weak Mercury of an obviously intelligent and accomplished man like Jefferson, but also leads us to the idea that it is also possible to have a very strong planet and not do anything with it. That is where the remark re: the Lord of the geniture came in and it did sound like an attack on the concept whether intended to be that or not. Hence the reply, "What's wrong with the Lord of the Geniture?" I think scratching our heads when we see a weak Mercury in the chart of a strong intelligence is our problem, not astrology's. Probably without intention we are looking at the chart in the way a scientist looks at a formula: this stimulus produces that response, and if it doesn't something is wrong. What is wrong is that idea. If I'm not mistaken Copernicus suffered from ill health and died relatively young. As Mercury rules his ASC the essentially weak planet manifested in that way. Mercury is in the 7th house of his chart as well as ruling the 1st and the opposition of a weak ruler to the ASC is one indication of poor health or at least the potential of poor health. In 2010, we are still defining and debating intelligence, and we are still scratching our heads when a man or woman of average IQ wildly succeeds while others with greater gifts do not. But we're doing the same thing here as we are doing with Jefferson. We are looking at a single thing to explain something of exceptional complexity. And we are confusing intelligence (Mercury) and accomplishment (The Declaration of Independence) or if not confusing them, at least saying one is wholly dependent on the other. Finally as I mentioned with the LoG, the idea is to use the planets not let them use you. Frawley's observation that the ruler of the ASC is the life you are given, the Lord of the Geniture is the life you want, is a good one to keep in mind. It reminds us to work with what we've got, not to expect what we've got to produce for us. Then there is the fact that when looking at Jefferson et al, we are looking backwards. When we look at a client's chart, we are looking forward. It isn't so crystal clear then. Mercury in Sagittarius or Pisces or peregrine tells us something, but it does not condemn. The same is true for all planets. Venus in Aries does not guarantee a life of loneliness. Saturn in Leo does not guarantee a life of want. We cover these situations with the cliche' "We have to look at the whole chart." Maybe, but looking closer at the planet that confuses us should be the first step.
35 by Mark We started, at least in this section of the thread, by noting that some very smart people have an essentially weak Mercury. The implication, not directly stated, is that this is inconsistent with our astrology. If you look at the first post Tom it is clear the original focus of the thread was about traditional texts making positive statements about Mercury in Jupiter ruled signs. The charts I provided were simply illustrative examples of this principle. However, you seem to be implying that I had some kind of hidden agenda to show up flaws in traditional astrology. That is both untrue and unfair. I offered the natal examples as a research tool for other astrologers. It was certainly not a Trojan horse argument to undermine traditional astrology. I just thought the thread was getting too abstract and academic and needed some real natal examples to ground our discussion a bit. If I was critiquing anything it was an oversimplification of astrological technique. That is where the remark re: the Lord of the geniture came in and it did sound like an attack on the concept whether intended to be that or not. Hence the reply, "What's wrong with the Lord of the Geniture?" I assumed Margherita's response was simply due to a misunderstanding. English is her second language. However, how you could take this an implicit or explicit 'attack' on the notion of LOG defeats me. In my book a simple question is not an attack. This is the traditional forum and therefore not a place to criticise the tradition but rather clarify and deepen our understanding of it. Finally as I mentioned with the LoG, the idea is to use the planets not let them use you. Frawley's observation that the ruler of the ASC is the life you are given, the Lord of the Geniture is the life you want, is a good one to keep in mind. It reminds us to work with what we've got, not to expect what we've got to produce for us. This has a parallel in ancient astrology with use of lots. In particular the Lot of Fortune and the Lot of Spirit. The Lot of Fortune is very much our fated destiny in life. What is given to us. The Lot of Spirit our potential to express our free will and make our own choices and decisions. Mark As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly
36 by margherita Maybe one of you can choose a chart with a debilitated Mercury and we can see in detail? Not Galileo please because I'm going to write about him in my blog when I have a free afternoon- anyway for a different matter. margherita Traditional astrology at http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com