Thursday, 22 April 2010

Astrologer charts - Liz Greene and John Frawley

Since both charts are included in the Astrodata Bank for everyone to see, they are not private any more, if they ever were. What's more, I'm not interested in character analysis, but I want to focus on their approach towards astrology and how this is depicted in their charts. I also want to state from the beginning that I am a HUGE fan of both, no matter how impossible this may seem to some of you. Liz Greene is considered the leading contemporary psychological astrologer and John Frawley is one of the most famous traditional astrologers that opposes - sometimes violently- psychological astrology. Their approaches may be completely different, but in my opinion they have both done astrology a world of good.

This is Liz Greene's chart:

And John Frawley's:

Both charts have an "A" Rodden rating, because the data source is from memory and not from a birth certificate. Liz Greene's time of birth seems very precise, probably a result of rectification on her part.
How do we approach this? I suggest we start with the natural ruler of astrology. Mercury, for the traditional astrologers and Uranus for the modern ones. Both these rulers present us with problems. Traditional astrologers say that Uranus cannot possibly be the ruler of astrology since it is the planet directly associated with the Enlightenment which marked the death of astrology. On the other hand, in traditional astrology we seem to have a contradiction. Astrology is a 9th house matter (higher knowledge) whose natural ruler (following the order of the planets) is Jupiter. But Jupiter and Mercury are arch-enemies. Based on the signs they rule, they both receive each other in detriment. So, how can a 9th house, Jupiter-associated matter be ruled by Mercury?
Of course one could argue that in order for something to be reborn, it has to die first and that's why Uranus killed astrology, so that it can resurface with a new face. On the other hand, astrology may be a 9th house matter, but we have to use Mercury in order to decode it. For astrology to become accessible, it can't stay forever in Jupiter's realm. God, not only has to be intuitively experienced, but intellectually understood.
Both astrologers have a strong Uranus. Frawley's Uranus is angular, conjunct an exalted Jupiter which also adds a religious tone to his astrology or his personality in general. Indeed, Frawley is deeply religious, a practicing Catholic, and he doesn't see a contradiction in these two. Greene's Uranus is also in the 7th house, but not in the same sign as the descendant. However, it is conjunct the North Node and makes wonderful trines with Mars (her ascendant ruler), an essentially dignified Venus in Libra and Jupiter (a natural benefic, although by far inferior to Frawley's exceptional Jupiter). She also has a close Moon-Uranus opposition while her Sun is applying to form a T-square with Moon and Uranus. I thinks this makes her more Uranian than Frawley, combined with the fact that her Saturn is in a dreadful state (cadent and in detriment), while Frawley is deeply involved with Saturn (his ascendant ruler, conjunct the MC, opposing his Sun). No wonder Greene's book on Uranus is perhaps her best yet. This is also an indication that Greene wanted to "revolutionize" astrology, for better or for worse, whereas Frawley stayed close to tradition.
They also have a strong Mercury, both of them. Frawley has a Mercury in Gemini and Greene a Mercury in Virgo. Again, Greene's Mercury seems to fare a little better than Frawley's. It is in Virgo, the sign of both its rulership and exaltation and in the same sign as the MC. Frawley's Mercury is in a succedent house and in the sixth house from the Ascendant. However, Greene's Mercury is under the Sun beams and moving towards combustion, while Frawley's Mercury is at a safe distance from the Sun.
Besides the Uranus-Saturn element that separates them there are some other very interesting differences. Frawley's 9th house (higher mind) ruler is in the 3rd, while Greene's 3rd house (lower mind) ruler is in the 9th. Which naturally means that they are in the signs of their detriment. On the face of it, this is not a good thing. We don't want a house ruler being in the opposite house it rules, because this may be an indication of distorted judgement. How can we interpret it in this case? We could say that Greene wants to take the lower mind to a higher level, but this is a problem because she regards astrology a lower mind issue that needs to be cleared of its "impurities", namely tradition. She has stated in interviews that she hated being considered a sort of "lunatic" because of her involvement with astrology and wanted to prove to the world that astrology is a serious matter. This could be a problem, because she may have tried to shape astrology into something that would be more easily acceptable by the current zeitgeist, for which fate is anathema. Or we could say that she allows the lower mind (the current zeitgeist or a scientific world-view) "pollute" her astrology. No more talk about good and evil in the traditional sense, just psychological states. On the plus side, she can easily make a profession out of astrology (9th house ruler conjunct the MC) and Saturn, even though in the sign of its detriment, it is in its own terms and face. Not the best Saturn, but the best place for a Saturn in Leo to be.
For Frawley, it is exactly the opposite scenario. He wants to take the higher mind to a lower state. This could be interpreted as aiming to make astrology accessible to the masses. Indeed, he has done a wonderful job at it. His books are probably the most coherent, clear, precise and easily understandable astrology books on the market. However, one could argue that he downgrades the spiritual side of astrology, despite the fact that God gets frequently mentioned in his books, by heavily focusing on prediction and shying away from deep character analysis. Perhaps his eagerly anticipated book on natal astrology will change all that. What seems to be in his favour is that his 3rd and 9th house rulers are in a sextile relationship with each other, whereas Greene's are inconjunct.
Another major difference between the two charts is that Greene's nativity is strongly diurnal, while Frawley's strongly nocturnal. Greene's Sun is at the height of its power, on the MC, but Frawley's Sun is at the lowest part of the heavens. Which means that Greene has a solar personality, more interested in the spiritual side of life (not in the metaphysical sense), while Frawley has a lunar personality, more interested in everyday existence. Another indication that Greene's astrology leans more towards the theoretical, while Frawley's leans more towards the practical. What's more, Frawley's Moon is in a very good condition. Although waning, it is a cold and wet planet in a cold and wet sign and in a wonderful mutual reception with an angular Jupiter. If you use the whole sign house system, it is also in the 3rd house, the house of its joy. Another point in Frawley's favour is that there is a mixed mutual reception between his angular Sun and Venus (his 9th house ruler), so his Venus finds her way to the IC, one of the angles. And of course, how could he avoid traditional astrology with the Sun in Taurus, a conservative sign, opposing Saturn in Scorpio? This is a common aspect among traditional astrologers.
I can't help wondering what kind of book they would have written together, both analyzing the same charts from their own perspective. When hell freezes over, they will both probably answer.