About Mercury

Now that Mercury is turning direct, I think it would be a good idea to have a look at this sometimes misunderstood planet. The tendency of a part of modern astrology to treat planets as if they are comfortable in every sign and just functioning differently, has brought some confusion. Besides the fact that Mercury is the planet of communication and of the gathering and exchange of information, the key, I think, to understanding Mercury is to remember that, traditionally, it is considered a cold and dry planet.
Which means that Mercury is not a passionate or an emotional planet. Passion and emotion may be two wonderful things to have, but you'd better keep your Mercury away from them. You could have a strong Sun or Jupiter for passion or a strong Moon or Venus for emotion. But NOT Mercury. Mercury is the planet of reason and it is best placed in air or earth signs. Mercury rules Gemini and Virgo and is also exalted in Virgo. The other air and earth signs may not be the absolutely best signs for Mercury, but at least in those signs Mercury is functioning reasonably well. Not so in fire and water signs.
This has nothing to do about being clever. But when you have a fiery Mercury, you get passionate about ideas and theories and you rarely deign to test them. You know they are true, because you feel deep inside that they are true. But that's not enough. Whenever someone questions your beliefs, you become defensive. You don't want to test them, because they mean so much to you, so how could you survive without them, once they are proven wrong? This is very often the case with astrologers as well. We become so convinced that some astrological concepts are perfect that no matter how many times they fail to give the anticipated results, we never question them, because they feel perfect to us, they work for us. But the sad fact is that if a technique fails to provide us with any accuracy, we must throw it away and not find excuses. That's the reason that I've always supported scientific research in astrology and hated phrases like: "I use the equal house system because it works" or " Use the Regiomantanus system in horary and the Placidus system in natal astrology, because they work". What kind of an argument is that, especially when everybody uses it to support their preferred house system?
Mercury in water cannot think clearly and objectively because emotion steps in and clouds the thinking process. A Mercury in Pisces employer, for example, may offer a promotion to someone because they are nice people or fun to hang around with, despite the obvious fact that they lack the necessary skills. Emotion prevents Mercury from exhibiting its true nature. These people may be very intuitive but very often they can't put two and two together and this can be dangerous in situations that demand clarity of thought.
Mercury is in detriment in the two Jupiter-ruled signs, Sagittarius and Pisces. Jupiter represents the kind of knowledge that comes from within, that demands a leap of faith, despite the fact that there is no external proof available. That's why it is considered the planet of religion and philosophy. That is of course extremely valuable, but equally valuable is COMMON SENSE.

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.

Whitney Houston

What a disastrous comeback. The album was not particularly successful. The appearance on Oprah and the subsequent concert in Central Park hinted at serious vocal problems. And then came the concerts in Australia and the verdict is final. THE VOICE is gone.

But what a voice that was. She was often accused of having an emotionless voice, quite rightly I think. But the tremendous POWER of her voice more than made up for the lack of emotional depth. Whitney was a show-off. When she sang live, she wanted to impress people with her vocal power. "I'm the greatest singer in the world and I'm going to prove it", that's what she was really saying. Her Sun in Leo trine Jupiter could not possibly have let her settle for less.
This Jupiter is her Ascendant ruler and along with the Moon, they are her most personal planets. They are both in Aries in the 2nd house, the house of voice. I know that technically and using the Placidus house system, these are 1st house planets, but there is no doubt in my mind that they must be considered 2nd house planets. Not only are they a long way from the Ascendant, they are also in a different sign and conjunct the 2nd house cusp. So, she identifies (Ascendant ruler) with her voice. Jupiter is also ruler of the MC (profession), which means she can make a living and earn money out of her voice. Is this Jupiter dignified? Yes, it is. It's not the best possible Jupiter (not in the sign of its rulership or exaltation, not angular and also retrograde) but still quite good. First of all, when Jupiter trines the Sun, it is usually retrograde and we should not make such a fuss about it. Jupiter is in its own triplicity, since this is a night chart. It is trine the Sun and in a mixed mutual reception with it (Jupiter in the exaltation of the Sun, Sun in the triplicity of Jupiter), so the Sun is able to lend a helping hand to Jupiter and vice versa. It becomes even more important considering that Jupiter is the Moon's first aspect after birth. What kind of voice would Whitney have? An Aries-like kind of voice. Potent, powerful.
But there is a problem. And the problem is that Mars, the ruler of the second house, is in Libra, the sign of its detriment and possibly the worst sign for Mars. In astrology, there is a long-standing argument over which planet is more important, the one occupying the house or the ruler of the house. It doesn't matter in this case, because it has become evident that both have played an important role in this chart. Yes, the voice is powerful, she can become a singer and be successful, she can earn lots of money but all that stand in great danger and extreme caution should be advised, because of this Mars. Saturn has been transiting this Mars in the last few months and the voice problems have become evident, especially during the concerts in Australia. How sad...
I've read she supposedly said something like: "If God wants me to be ridiculed or scoffed at, so be it". How Sun/Neptune is that?

Mundane astrology - Case study: Greece

Most mundane astrologers use the country chart to make predictions. But what is true in many cases, it is also true for Greece. We can't be 100% sure which is the right chart, even though most Greek astrologers prefer one particular chart. To avoid this issue, let's use a traditional technique, that of the Aries ingress chart. It is said that only if there are fixed signs on the angles, can this chart be valid for the whole year. It doesn't matter. Can we draw some conclusions, even if for a three-month period?

Of course, we must keep in mind that Bulgaria, for example, has the same ingress chart with only a very slight degree change, so this is a chart that doesn't only concern Greece. Perhaps, all the countries with more or less the same chart should focus on the areas they are most concerned about or this chart should be used in tandem with the national chart.
So, what do we have here? First of all, an angular Saturn, from the 12th house side, but it is conjunct the Ascendant. The fact that it is from the 12th house side, I think this weakens Saturn. Saturn may rejoice in the 12th house, but it is a diurnal planet and here it finds itself in a nocturnal chart, on the nocturnal side of the chart. Saturn is involved in a very difficult T-square with the Sun and Pluto. It is in Libra, however, but retrograde. So, countries with this T-square on the angles (Italy, for example) or countries which have Leo or Capricorn and Aquarius on the Ascendant can expect an eventful spring, if the national charts concur.
Greece has a Libra Ascendant in this ingress chart, which means that the 1st house ruler (the people) is Venus, which is in detriment in Aries. Not a good sign at all. The same detrimented Venus is the ruler of the 8th house as well (national debt). This describes the current situation in Greece perfectly. The Greek government is trying desperately to cut the huge budget deficit and has taken some severe measures, which were not well received by the people. The fact that Venus is in the 7th house shows that both the Greek people and the national debt are at the mercy of other countries, the other European Union members. The government is the 10th house (Cancer) and the Moon is in Taurus, in the sign of its exaltation. Not bad, but it stands in very great danger by being in the 8th house and conjunct Algol, not to mention the South Node on the MC. It is indeed strong in the sense that there is no actual opposition from the majority of the other parliamentary parties, but the measures are extreme and members of the same party have voiced their concern. Pluto in the 4th house indicates that land problems may arise. Loss of property, perhaps, or an increase in vandalism, burglaries etc.
The good news is that there is a great mutual reception between the Sun and Mars, ruling the 7th and the 11th houses, so it is highly likely that Greece is going to get the help it seeks from other countries. Mars is also the ruler of the 2nd house, so, again, money from friends is indicated. What seems to be bad news for the government is the fact that the 6th house (workers, employees) seems to be particularly strong with Jupiter in rulership right on the cusp. The fact that Uranus is also there about to form yet another opposition with Saturn shows that there is going to be a possible uproar. This has not proven to be the case so far, but, on the other hand, the measures have not been implemented yet. We will have to wait and see.

Andrew Koenig dies

Andrew Koenig, the "Growing Pains" star and son of Walter Koenig of Star Trek fame, died after - according to his father - having committed suicide, following severe depression. We do not have a birth time, so I'm going to focus on specific parts of his chart, mainly the Sun/Neptune tight square and all those Virgo planets. This is going to be a more general analysis, not only because we don't have an accurate birth time, but also because a natal chart is only a natal chart, no matter how important. What we are today is a result of all the connections our natal chart has made with the other natal charts over the years. It is still impossible to know the whole truth about a person.
I've always associated the sign of Virgo with depression, much more so than other signs. Virgo is not a fire sign, which means that it doesn't find life exciting. It's not a water sign, so it doesn't seek solace in emotional connections with other people and it's not an air sign, ready and eager to worship at the altar of knowledge. It is an earth sign, but unlike Taurus, it doesn't find meaning in bodily senses and unlike Capricorn, it doesn't aim at conquering the body and its weaknesses.
It's the sign opposite Pisces, which means that it's the sign as far away from God as possible. Virgos are not here to realize how we are all interconnected, but how different we are from each other. And they do exactly that. They tend to be critical and find fault with everything. But when you find fault with everything, you end up being alone. You are not likely to be appreciated, which can be pretty depressing.
So, what a Virgo needs is stamina and endurance and they need to learn how to handle separateness and make something useful out of it. In short, they need a healthy Saturn. Koenig has a very bad Saturn, in Aries and retrograde. Not much help, there. To top it all, Koenig has a very tight Sun/Neptune square, which contradicts the Virgo energy. Here is a man or a part of him, that hates separateness. This aspect can be equally depressing, because it can't survive without some sort of God. Only the belief that there is a God, who moves in mysterious ways, can make life bearable, because otherwise life is a disaster, a huge cosmic joke. But how can Koenig find a God with all that Virgo energy?
At the moment of his death, he was going through some very difficult outer planet transits. The Uranus opposition, which signals the middle-life crisis and the very difficult Neptune transit, forming a T-square with his natal Sun/Neptune. So, not only was he saying goodbye to his youth, but his natural tendency to view life on the earthly plane as utterly meaningless was exacerbated. Of course, this doesn't mean that suicide was his only option, a lot of people are going through similar transits with no such dramatic consequences, but, still, this is not the happiest of times.

Oscar 2010 - Jeff Bridges

This is Jeff Bridges' chart from Astrodata Bank at the astro.com website. Jeff Bridges is this year's favourite for the Best Actor in a Leading role Academy Award. It is a very interesting chart, because he has a lot of angular planets, which means planets that are able to act, and express themselves strongly. He has the Sun in Sagittarius and his chart ruler, Mercury, also in Sagittarius, conjunct the I.C. Mercury is also the ruler of his Mid-heaven. What can we make of this Mercury placement, obviously his most important planet?
Mercury is situated at the bottom of the chart, in the 4th house of family and tradition. Since Mercury also rules his M.C., he has to find a profession that will, in some manner or form, follow in the footsteps of his parents, particularly those of his father (4th house). He did exactly that, as he comes from a family of actors. What's more, he made a success of it. He was born on a Full Moon at night, which makes the Moon the light in sect and incredibly strong, since it is at the height of its power. The Moon also trines Jupiter and Neptune, quite fortunate aspects. His success is largely due to this Moon, which is conjunct the MC.
However, Mercury is in detriment and along with the Sun and the Moon, they are all square Saturn, very strong on the Ascendant. Which leads us to believe that something is not quite as it's supposed to be.
Mercury in detriment indicates, as Bernadette Brady puts it, that he may follow the family tradition, but in a somewhat alternative way. The strong Saturn aspects promise duration, but at the same time show some hesitation in accepting his life path. This was indeed the case. He is blessed with good looks, considerable acting skills and actor parents. What would be more natural than becoming an actor himself without giving it a second thought? However, based on his biography, it took him a long time to decide whether he wanted to pursue an acting career or not, but once he did, longevity was guaranteed. He is being considered for the Academy Award, almost forty years after his first nomination for the Last Picture Show. That is a considerable achievement. However, he has never won so far, even though he is well respected and admired by his peers. He did not become a star, possibly out of choice, although he had everything going for him. He is not what you would call a bankable actor. He has made a few well received films, but the majority of the films he starred in were unsuccessful, either financially or artistically. He doesn't like the limelight and prefers to spend his time, when not working, with his family at his ranch. Saturn on the Ascendant wouldn't have it otherwise.
What is impressive in his progressed chart is that he has recently had his progressed Full Moon, an important phase in the life of an individual, a time for reaping rewards for your efforts. We should keep in mind that he was born under a Full Moon, so this phase suits him the most. Moreover, this progressed Full Moon was exactly conjunct progressed Jupiter, ruler of his Sun and Mercury, his chart and MC ruler. An interesting time indeed.

Oscar 2010 and Pluto in Capricorn

What I have noticed in the last couple of years regarding the film industry is that a new film genre is gaining popularity, at least in award ceremonies, if not in ticket sales. That of the film/documentary feature. While this kind of film cannot be called a documentary, it is still quite a long way from the type of film we are used to. The emphasis is on real-life events or events that resemble real-life as much as possible, which means that there is a trend in Hollywood to de-glamourize story-telling and present the story in a more factual sort of way. Last year, we had Frost/Nixon and Milk, two films nominated for the Academy Award, and this year we have The Hurt Locker, District 9 (partly) or even Precious, whose overly dramatic story is presented in a more matter-of-fact way, in an effort to shy away from intense melodrama. Is there an astrological explanation for this?
I believe Pluto in Capricorn has a lot to do with this. All the above films are trying to show the dark side of society and what life is really like if you strip away the melodrama and the happy endings. Even Precious doesn't really have a happy ending, but instead the girl has simply succeeded in coming to terms with her dark reality and moving on. All these films are trying to do is show how sick society really is and what it does to the people who live in it. In Frost/Nixon we witnessed the dark side of politics, in Milk and in District 9 we saw how minorities are treated, in The Hurt Locker we saw what war is like on an everyday basis and in Precious we saw how cruel and abusive families can be.
All this is very well, but I fear that this is not a direction the film industry should go to. What most of these films lack (with the exception of Precious), is a plot, a story with characters that could get you emotionally involved in what you are watching, because films and documentaries are two completely different genres and it is very difficult to blend them successfully. The fact that Saturn is strong in Libra and Neptune is still in Aquarius, another Saturn-ruled sign, doesn't help much either. There's too much Saturn in the heavens. I believe that things will gradually begin to change when Neptune moves into Pisces. At least, I hope so.