A question about Mr. Donald Trump's chart

brainpuddle

Well-known member
Dictating orders to me or diagnosing me because I disagree is a narcissistic tactic designed to put me under the thumb, a narcissistic intimidation. My reaction is the opposite. I step off the game board when it is a waste of time. There is no inducement to be under the thumb, but others will bite that hook probably. When a control freak comes calling, there are hapless victims who are sucked in. That's how narcissists expand their territory.
Christ dude, calm down. lol It's just an astrology discussion. It's okay that not everyone practices the way you do. And if you genuinely don't want to engage with any new ideas, you shouldn't attack people for it in the first place. Just let people do their own thing, man.
(Also you do see the irony here, right? You diagnosing me as a narcissist for disagreeing with you?)
 

brainpuddle

Well-known member
Brainpuddle, are you familiar with the early books* by Steven Forrest: The Inner Sky and The Changing Sky? Highly recommended.
I'm not familiar, but it sounds potentially interesting. Knee deep in two good books at the moment and I'm a rather slow reader, but I'll add it to my list. Thanks. : )


Basically his thesis is that each planet, sign, and house has (minimally) two natures, one empowering and one disempowering. He calls them teachers and tricksters. He also talks about successful and unsuccessful navigations of the main chart components.
I've read a little bit about that dichotomy system before. I do believe in the balance of negative and positive in all things astrological, so it appeals on some level. Though I also think that way of looking at it tends to make it... something like simultaneously black and white, instead of simply awash of shades of grey. Hm. I'm not sure I'm explaining myself well.
I guess I see dividing any placement into the "good side" and the "bad side" as undermining to the true complexity of value in ourselves. We're an intricate web, the aspects of our being playing off one another into something more dynamic and meaningful than whether we're simply doing it right or wrong. It's not dissimilar to your insistence on looking at the whole chart and it's connections to itself, rather than examining a single sign. I believe that principle can and should be applied at all levels, right down to the meaning of a single sign on its own.


I think this approach is helpful in using the chart as a tool for self-awareness, vs. loading people up with a heap of static, inviolable, negative personality traits.

Forrest's approach is dynamic, so a successful navigation is something we can work on. For example, Mars can be the athlete or the hero instead of the merely quarrelsome person.

With my Leo moon, I like the part about Leo that describes the sign as generous, playful, and noble. With my NN in Aries, I try to develop my courage. Fire signs have their benefits.

Then we don't always know whether a person operates at the level of the celestial, terrestrial, or bestial.
I would say confronting the negative in ourselves is absolutely necessary for self-awareness. It's not like I think everything in astrology is negative, I even included some disclaimers in my original text about Sag and Gemini having advantages out of the very same mindset. But the presence of such advantages and the potential for growth are no reason not to address the likely negatives of any sign or combination of signs.
For instance, as a Taurus Sun, I feel I've achieved a pretty solid level of zen, all things considered. But that temper, that need to dominate, is still in me. I haven't grown as I have because the negative isn't there, my growth has blossomed from the negative, it is reliant on its existence, it's made meaningful by it. The perspective, the mental dynamic, the weaknesses, the tendencies, those are all still with me and always will be. And if I wasn't honest with myself about that, I couldn't possibly have grown in the first place. I see focusing solely on positive traits and potential for growth as ultimately pandering and unhelpful.


I think a big part of Trump's character is explained by Mercury square Neptune. I think it's very hard for him to tell or even understand the truth (facts) of a situation.
I definitely agree that it is, but in my perspective, it's attributable to the superficial, short-sighted, and improvisational functioning of his Gemini Sun, spurred by the blind self-assurance of his fire Moon and Ascendant. Gemini is easily confused, and most can work around this in some capacity, due to the gifts they have. But Leo and Sag are stubborn signs, and I think they undermine Gemini's ability to improvise and compromise effectively. Those Leo ideals are telling him he doesn't need to think about this or that, and his Moon is deeply fulfilled by his cult following, more than any alternative answer could provide him. By the nature of these signs, he'll always choose the answer that makes him feel good about himself, and he has the capacity to be convinced by his own desire for it.
 

ElenaJ

Well-known member
Just joined in on this conversation and read the comments.
While I agree with a lot of the comments, I do most so with Cary.
Energy needs a context to be evaluated.
If we take another example, let's say Fire, we can define it. But is it positive or negative, good or bad? I can use fire to cook with, to heat my bath water, but also to burn down a forest or a house.
It is what it is essentially, but how it is used defines its quality.
And this happens in a chart. One energy taken out of context has potential for many things, but when we look at it inserted in a chart, we can understand much more about how the energy is manifested and released.
In reality, "Leo" or "gemini" or "sagittarius" in themselves do not exist by themselves, they are potentials, and part of a larger picture, the context of the whole.
 

brainpuddle

Well-known member
It is what it is essentially, but how it is used defines its quality.
And this happens in a chart. One energy taken out of context has potential for many things, but when we look at it inserted in a chart, we can understand much more about how the energy is manifested and released.
In reality, "Leo" or "gemini" or "sagittarius" in themselves do not exist by themselves, they are potentials, and part of a larger picture, the context of the whole.
If the signs don't exist, then neither does the whole that they make up.
 

brainpuddle

Well-known member
What I was questioning, is that it sounded in your original post as though you felt my commentary on the nature of those signs was meaningless without context, that a sign on its own has no specific themes attached. While I'd disagree with the second point either way, if that is what you're trying to say, I was also pointing out that I wasn't speaking without context. It was in the context of the relationship between his Sun and his Moon/Ascendant, and how the latter may be undermining the abilities of the former to circumvent its own weaknesses.
 

Nathan

Active member
You might enjoy this elaboration from Richard Tarnas on the topics of energies and potentials (archetypes) and how they unfold within contexts (concrete situations).


The main thing to understand here is that astrology is not concretely predictive,
but archetypally predictive. That is, the birth chart and transits indicate which universal
principles are emphasized, in what combination, and when. They do not give
information such as “You will get an offer of a job as editor-in-chief for a large
publishing firm on April 26, 2004,” or “You will meet your soul mate on the beach at
Waikiki at sunset on New Year's Day in 2005.” It may not be impossible for a gifted
clairvoyant to do something like this, but astrology has a different character.

Along the same lines, some archetypal dynamics symbolized in our birth chart
we recognize as true, but not so much of our own character as of the kinds of
experiences we have drawn towards us, the character of events and relationships that are
in our life. This is because the archetypal patterns in our birth chart describe the quality
of our life experience. One cannot know for sure whether the particular archetypal
energies will be something one is conscious of in oneself, or whether they express
themselves in the larger sphere of one’s life in the events, relationships, and
circumstances that are to some degree external to one, yet ultimately reflect one’s own
consciousness. Particularly if we have not psychologically “owned” those qualities in
our chart, we will tend to project them onto others--and thus draw towards us others
who will fulfill those energies in our life. As Jung often said, what is forced to remain
unconscious comes to us as “fate.”

The value of a good astrological analysis is that it can shed a more coherent light
on the many diverse and often chaotic particulars of our life, so that we can see
clarifying archetypal patterns in it. In terms of the more problematic qualities suggested
in the chart, some of these will no longer seem relevant to us simply because we have
already lived them through, fully experienced their challenges, and outgrown them.
More than that, we will have integrated those aspects and made them work for us in a
more positive way. And that of course is as it should be. An analysis like this is meant
to further encourage just this process. As an ancient esoteric dictum put it: “The
sagacious person enhances the workings of the heavens in the same way a farmer
enhances the workings of nature.”

Finally, it is important to realize that, at least in one crucial sense, astrology
operates beyond good and evil. All archetypes are Janus-faced, with positive and
negative sides, and as the foregoing discussion suggests, no astrologer can look at a
chart and, simply on that basis, conclude whether that person is “good” or “bad.” The
birth chart does not determine the moral vector of personal character. Nor does it
determine ultimate “success” or “failure.” It portrays rather the basic nature of the
archetypal dynamics that inform that individual's life and character. How the individual
copes with and grows through those particular dynamics, how she or he creatively
embodies and integrates the diverse potentials of the birth chart, depends in the last
analysis on the individual.

The same archetype can express itself benignly or destructively, in an exalted way or an ignoble way,
and to a great extent which of these occurs
will be affected by the kind of consciousness that is brought to the situation. The god
needs to be honored, the archetype will manifest, but there is considerable latitude as to
how that may happen.

And herein lies the importance of astrological insight, for the very act of
knowing the nature of the particular archetypes that are seeking to manifest, combined
with an awareness of their potential timing, can play a significant role in positively
influencing the outcome. Then life becomes more of a dance—a subtle interaction
between archetypal forces and human awareness, a play of consciousness between the
gods and the human mind and will and heart which they inform.


https://cosmosandpsyche.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/introductiontoastrology1.pdf
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
I'm not familiar, but it sounds potentially interesting. Knee deep in two good books at the moment and I'm a rather slow reader, but I'll add it to my list. Thanks. : )


I've read a little bit about that dichotomy system before. I do believe in the balance of negative and positive in all things astrological, so it appeals on some level. Though I also think that way of looking at it tends to make it... something like simultaneously black and white, instead of simply awash of shades of grey. Hm. I'm not sure I'm explaining myself well.
I guess I see dividing any placement into the "good side" and the "bad side" as undermining to the true complexity of value in ourselves. We're an intricate web, the aspects of our being playing off one another into something more dynamic and meaningful than whether we're simply doing it right or wrong. It's not dissimilar to your insistence on looking at the whole chart and it's connections to itself, rather than examining a single sign. I believe that principle can and should be applied at all levels, right down to the meaning of a single sign on its own.


I would say confronting the negative in ourselves is absolutely necessary for self-awareness. It's not like I think everything in astrology is negative, I even included some disclaimers in my original text about Sag and Gemini having advantages out of the very same mindset. But the presence of such advantages and the potential for growth are no reason not to address the likely negatives of any sign or combination of signs.
For instance, as a Taurus Sun, I feel I've achieved a pretty solid level of zen, all things considered. But that temper, that need to dominate, is still in me. I haven't grown as I have because the negative isn't there, my growth has blossomed from the negative, it is reliant on its existence, it's made meaningful by it. The perspective, the mental dynamic, the weaknesses, the tendencies, those are all still with me and always will be. And if I wasn't honest with myself about that, I couldn't possibly have grown in the first place. I see focusing solely on positive traits and potential for growth as ultimately pandering and unhelpful.


I definitely agree that it is, but in my perspective, it's attributable to the superficial, short-sighted, and improvisational functioning of his Gemini Sun, spurred by the blind self-assurance of his fire Moon and Ascendant. Gemini is easily confused, and most can work around this in some capacity, due to the gifts they have. But Leo and Sag are stubborn signs, and I think they undermine Gemini's ability to improvise and compromise effectively. Those Leo ideals are telling him he doesn't need to think about this or that, and his Moon is deeply fulfilled by his cult following, more than any alternative answer could provide him. By the nature of these signs, he'll always choose the answer that makes him feel good about himself, and he has the capacity to be convinced by his own desire for it.

I understand your concerns about Forrest's schematics. I am not a big fan of binaries as having much objective reality. Surely there are in-between or neutral positions. I am also not a fan of Forrest's recent books, which are heavily into evolutionary astrology. But in The Inner Sky he comes across as a wise and funny man.

Leo moon here. Watch who yer callin' stubborn!:innocent:
 

Bunraku

Well-known member
Personality is very subjective. Modern always puts moral judgments on personalties based on what they like/don't like. This thread for example.

What you all are witnessing is the disconnect between the tendency to want to label everything as "potential" and spin things in a positive view that modern "psychology" school tends to have V.S. his actual life as described by people who don't agree with him politically. I bet if we didn't know his birth time/chart and he got on the internet as an anonymous poster posting his natal chart, he would get the generic good-sounding interpretations :lol: But because conservatives and republicans like him, so you all are more willing to spin his chart in a negative way :innocent:


Finally, it is important to realize that, at least in one crucial sense, astrology
operates beyond good and evil. All archetypes are Janus-faced, with positive and negative sides, and as the foregoing discussion suggests, no astrologer can look at a chart and, simply on that basis, conclude whether that person is “good” or “bad.” The birth chart does not determine the moral vector of personal character. Nor does it determine ultimate “success” or “failure.” It portrays rather the basic nature of the archetypal dynamics that inform that individual's life and character. How the individual copes with and grows through those particular dynamics, how she or he creatively embodies and integrates the diverse potentials of the birth chart, depends in the last analysis on the individual.

So where this this type of understanding and nuance when it comes to reading trump's chart? He's labeled as a **** stirrer by a member in the previous thread.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
What is astrology, if not a science of generalization?
Taking something specific
and
applying it more broadly
is making a generalization.
It's a generalization to say all dogs chase squirrels.

Generalizations can be similar to stereotypes
in that they are sometimes wrong and harmful. :smile:
Specifics are more reliable
unlikea generalizations.
It's all good and well to say that everyone's a snowflake, but is the point of what we do not to identify trackable patterns in human behavior?
Sure, any sign can have ego issues, and I could just as easily argue there isn't a human on this planet who doesn't, but I think it's entirely fair to say that fire signs are more prone to overt displays of it, as well as a deeper entanglement with their own ego issues in the framework of their self-concept.
 
Top