View Single Post
  #16  
Unread 05-17-2019, 08:43 PM
Flapjacks's Avatar
Flapjacks Flapjacks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 953
Re: Questions about the natal moon and mercury

I don't know if waybread has completely abandoned this thread, but I'd like to continue to pick her brains if she is inclined to oblige.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by "natural strength."

The moon gives your emotional nature, but it also symbolizes your home and experience of your mother.

Mercury gives thinking and communicating.

A sign shows how or in what manner a planet operates. Here it is helpful to look at the modalities (cardinal, fixed, mutable) and element (earth, air, fire, or water.) Mercury in Taurus, the fixed earth sign, would probably take a deliberate and practical approach to thinking through problems, for example.

A house shows where or in what type of activity the planet focuses.

A planet in the sign it rules (domicile) is usually extra strong. So one's emotional nature (moon) would be strong when in its own sign of Cancer.

In modern astrology we tend to look at aspects. A well-aspected planet functions more efficiently and easily than one involved in squares and oppositions, for example. In traditional western astrology you'd look more at essential dignities (like terms, exaltation or fall, &c)

Consider that someone might be born with a chart showing a lot of intellectual promise, and then have a serious head injury as a young child. You might have two "time twins" raised in very different circumstances that affect the child's emotional and mental development.

A birth chart is not a biography, but an indicator of potential.

So far there's not much of a marriage between genetics and neuroscience with astrology.
Wouldn't a head injury or other modification of potential ('modification' used loosely...) also be indicated somewhere in the horoscope, and therefore the planetary placement remains a descriptor rather than indicator?

I don't mean to tread this into fatalism territory (otherwise I would have said 'determiner'), just trying to tease apart your view on the limits of interpretation within the context of Yony's question.
Reply With Quote