Saturn and intellect

T

The Cat astrologer

Well-known member
This is not necessarily linked to Saturn; he could be also very laconic, I have too few elements to say if it is really Saturn.
Often water signs can give a similar influence (well, in that case, more than detailed, is an explanation that follows a twisted way).
Also Virgo can can be rather detailed.
 
T

turkish girl

Well-known member
The Cat astrologer said:
This is not necessarily linked to Saturn; he could be also very laconic, I have too few elements to say if it is really Saturn.
Often water signs can give a similar influence (well, in that case, more than detailed, is an explanation that follows a twisted way).
Also Virgo can can be rather detailed.
Click to expand...

I put my chart here for better looking.This detalied talking thing i have heard from a famous vedic astrologer.He said that when mercury is in loew degree conjunct saturn it gives this but when saturn has low degree it gives slow mental process and dull talking i dont know he can be wrong though lol.6th house shows virgo traits if it suits your theory...
 

Attachments

  • birth chart.jpg
    birth chart.jpg
    53.2 KB · Views: 36
T

The Cat astrologer

Well-known member
I do not know vedic astrology, so I can't say if your astrologer is right or wrong in affirming this (vedic astrology works in a different way and the signs follows the precession, so many planets would even be in different signs).
I do not consider the houses so related to the signs, a planet in 6th house for me hasn't necessarily Virgo characteristics.
I would rather consider Venus lord of the 3rd house (that rules communications) that is in square to Jupiter in Scorpio, but still very practical being in Saturn's domicile with a dignified dispositor and with a view "from above" or "detached" if you prefer, with the air sign Aquarius.
Venus is also combust by the Sun, this is interesting, do you talk much about yourself or about great problems (yours or of the humanity in general since the Sun rules the 12th house)?.
The Virgo ascendant I think that helps much the tendence of being detailed.
 
T

turkish girl

Well-known member
The Cat astrologer said:
I do not know vedic astrology, so I can't say if your astrologer is right or wrong in affirming this (vedic astrology works in a different way and the signs follows the precession, so many planets would even be in different signs).
I do not consider the houses so related to the signs, a planet in 6th house for me hasn't necessarily Virgo characteristics.
I would rather consider Venus lord of the 3rd house (that rules communications) that is in square to Jupiter in Scorpio, but still very practical being in Saturn's domicile with a dignified dispositor and with a view "from above" or "detached" if you prefer, with the air sign Aquarius.
Venus is also combust by the Sun, this is interesting, do you talk much about yourself or about great problems (yours or of the humanity in general since the Sun rules the 12th house)?.
The Virgo ascendant I think that helps much the tendence of being detailed.
Click to expand...

Sorry for my english,i was trying to say that if someone tells something with 5 words,i tell it with 10 words.It is like that.

Regarding other question i label myself as a real aquarius so this could lead talking about humanity problems as well so do I.I don't like talking about myself much,with several people i can but i like privacy.I feel like if venus deal with something in my chart it is mostly fuc*ed up lol sad to realise again she rules communication too lol.
 
blacksun?

blacksun?

Well-known member
graay ghost said:
Hm. In modern astrology, strangely, Saturn in hard aspect to Mercury is supposed to be a sign of intelligence. Not much is said about Saturn on its own, though. The sort of organization and structure Saturn brings is not necessarily a sign of intelligence, but without it it can make life harder. Take a look at "executive disorder."
Click to expand...

I just looked up a few brilliant minds, all of them turned out to have Sat/Merc aspects.

Einstein: Saturn conjunct Mercury in Aries
Newton: Saturn tight square Mercury, Mercury in its supposed detriment, haha.
Darwin: Saturn loosely square Mercury
Descartes and Nietzsche: Saturn trine Mercury
Bohr: Mercury tight square Saturn, with Saturn in its supposed detriment.
 
sandrang123

sandrang123

Well-known member
Senecar said:
I know someone who has Saturn in Capricorn in his natal chart, and his life time interest is collecting and reading books. Doesn't mean it has to do with his intellect, but it can increase it.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, too. Capricorn is the sign of higher education and learning. With Saturn in Capricorn I'd think it would bring even more structure to thinking and educational paths (such as institutionalized learning). It could also indicate a life-long pursuit of learning (given that Saturn is a slow moving planet). I could also see the potential for rigid thinking, too, when it comes to learned rules and extreme caution about breaking social codes. But of course, it depends how it's aspected.

Great discussion!
Sandy
 
Senecar

Senecar

Well-known member
blacksun? said:
I just looked up a few brilliant minds, all of them turned out to have Sat/Merc aspects.

Einstein: Saturn conjunct Mercury in Aries
Newton: Saturn tight square Mercury, Mercury in its supposed detriment, haha.
Darwin: Saturn loosely square Mercury
Descartes and Nietzsche: Saturn trine Mercury
Bohr: Mercury tight square Saturn, with Saturn in its supposed detriment.
Click to expand...

Isn't square aspect suppose to make Saturn more malefic, therefore restrict the capacity of Mercury?

Doesn't the fact that both good and bad aspect of Saturn and Mercury connected to the genius people indicate their aspect has actually nothing to do with their being genius?

Isn't it more what house the planets are in, and their dignity which affect the point?
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
blacksun? said:

I just looked up a few brilliant minds
all of them turned out to have Sat/Merc aspects.
Click to expand...
That's not unexpected :smile:
given that as Dirius just highlighted
Dirius said:
You can have some sort of aspect between Mercury and Saturn
in 8 out of 12 signs
which renders 66% of the charts to have an aspect.
Click to expand...
So TWO THIRDS of all natal charts have a Saturn Mercury aspect
blacksun? said:

Einstein: Saturn conjunct Mercury in Aries
Newton: Saturn tight square Mercury, Mercury in its supposed detriment, haha.
Darwin: Saturn loosely square Mercury
Descartes and Nietzsche: Saturn trine Mercury
Bohr: Mercury tight square Saturn, with Saturn in its supposed detriment.
Click to expand...
that also by implication then
infers that everyone born worldwide
on same day as Einstein, Newton, Darwin, Descartes and Nietzsche
are all "brilliant minds" because they share those aspects
obviously
clearly
there is more to the assessment of intellect than solely Saturn Mercury aspects :smile:
 
graay ghost

graay ghost

Well-known member
It would not be 2/3rds of all charts have an aspect between Mercury and Saturn. It would depend on what orb one used for aspects.

And anyway we can say that someone born on the same day as Einstein would have the same Mercury/Saturn aspect and wasn't like Einstein. You need to remember that becoming a famous genius is as much about luck as intelligence. The person also needs to find themselves in a situation that would also cultivate their intelligence and make them well-known. The vast majority of the population simply does not have that. Such a person with a Merc/Saturn conjunction might still be quite clever, but nobody except their family, peers, and people they do business with will ever know. For "above average" intelligence, that's 50% of the population, mind.
 
T

The Cat astrologer

Well-known member
turkish girl said:
Sorry for my english,i was trying to say that if someone tells something with 5 words,i tell it with 10 words.It is like that.

Regarding other question i label myself as a real aquarius so this could lead talking about humanity problems as well so do I.I don't like talking about myself much,with several people i can but i like privacy.I feel like if venus deal with something in my chart it is mostly fuc*ed up lol sad to realise again she rules communication too lol.
Click to expand...
Well, a square from "expanding" Jupiter in Scorpio (not only a sign rather twisted and indirect in its style of expression, but also Venus' detriment) can surely give a problem of this sort.
A Virgo ascendant could often tend to give many (sometimes too many) details, so using many words telling in 5 minutes what could be told in 2.
 
T

The Cat astrologer

Well-known member
Senecar said:
Isn't square aspect suppose to make Saturn more malefic, therefore restrict the capacity of Mercury?

Doesn't the fact that both good and bad aspect of Saturn and Mercury connected to the genius people indicate their aspect has actually nothing to do with their being genius?

Isn't it more what house the planets are in, and their dignity which affect the point?
Click to expand...

Most astrologers says that a square is simply bad and a trine is simply good, but some like Frawley do not agree.
A trine is an aspect telling that the energies of two planets are working in harmony, they could also harmoniusly work together to bring a person in taking drugs or simply can easily "hurt each other", it is not necessarily a good aspect (ask someone with Moon trine Mars, at least when with bad reception).
A square gives the necessity of more hard work on what is represented by the planets, could even stimulate a person in taking extra efforts on a matter or can give more discipline and self-control, in this case Mercury square Saturn could push someone for a more in-depth and structured study of a matter not satisfied with the explanations he received.

The different aspects of Mercury-Saturn in geniuses' charts simply can indicate a different expression of their genius.
And naturally one can even be a genius without any aspect between Mercury and Saturn.

Maybe I badly expressed myself at the beginning of this thread giving the idea of giving an exagerated importance of Saturn on intelligence.
I wanted simply to say that the situation of Saturn in a chart (even if not in aspect with Mercury) can affect the intelligence (or maybe it is better to say the expression of the intelligence), more than the other planets, so I thought that in the past Saturn had received less consideration than it deserved on this matter.
 
Last edited:
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
The Cat astrologer said:
Most astrologers says that a square is simply bad
and a trine is simply good,
but some like Frawley do not agree.
Click to expand...
Most MODERN astrologers may say that :smile:
but you are posting on Traditional board
and
Traditionally
astrologers for thousands of years
have been aware that there is more to a square than "simply bad"
so keep that in mind
 
T

The Cat astrologer

Well-known member
JUPITERASC said:
Most MODERN astrologers may say that :smile:
but you are posting on Traditional board
and
Traditionally
astrologers for thousands of years
have been aware that there is more to a square than "simply bad"
so keep that in mind
Click to expand...
Thank you for your recommendation.
Still I always saw a sort of ambivalence in the traditional sources about squares, usually they say it's a bad aspect, but indeed they sometimes attribute positive traits or influences to squares.
Also modern astrologers are not unanimous in telling that squares are evil and only evil.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
The Cat astrologer said:
Thank you for your recommendation.
Still I always saw a sort of ambivalence in the traditional sources
about squares
Click to expand...
quotes from these traditional sources that you consider "ambivalent"
would be helpful for clarification :smile:
The Cat astrologer said:

usually they say it's a bad aspect
but indeed they sometimes attribute positive traits or influences
to squares..
Click to expand...
I already highlighted that Traditionally
astrologers for thousands of years
have been aware that there is more to a square than "simply bad"
 
T

The Cat astrologer

Well-known member
JUPITERASC said:
quotes from these traditional sources that you consider "ambivalent"
would be helpful for clarification :smile:

I already highlighted that Traditionally
astrologers for thousands of years
have been aware that there is more to a square than "simply bad"
Click to expand...
When reading the traditional books I wasn't too much interested on what was their "theorical" view of the aspects (well, traditional sources often are not much theorical anyway), so I had to look watch again in the books to find something but indeed I had not found anything really convincing apart from a generic idea of square and opposition as aspects disarmonius (Ptolemy book 1 chap. 13) or square as unfriendly and opposition as inimical (Al-Biruni par. 374); the other sources I have simply do not talk much about the matter.
So I had not found anything really convincing of my assertion, since these are too vague; thank you for helping me on getting a better focus over this matter.

As for the second point, yes, you already highlighted that, I was simply saying that I agree with you.

Anyway, Senecar seemed to consider a square of Saturn always like an affliction, I wanted only to affirm that in my opinion this is not always so, maybe my reasoning had taken a theorical explanation that seemed linked to (some) modern views, but in fact I was contesting them anyway.
 
Last edited:
Senecar

Senecar

Well-known member
I am not sure if the ancient astrologers have used aspects at all. I was under impression the aspects are quite recent concepts in the traditional astrology itself.

Aspects themselves are not good or bad, but aren't they supposed to be used to look at the relations between two planets in the houses either good or bad, easing supporting and uplifting vs. challenging, difficult and diminishing from the qualities of the planets which become more benefic or malefics under the aspects?
 
Last edited:
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
The Cat astrologer said:
When reading the traditional books I wasn't too much interested on what was their "theorical" view of the aspects (well, traditional sources often are not much theorical anyway), so I had to look watch again in the books to find something but indeed I had not found anything really convincing apart from a generic idea of square and opposition as aspects disarmonius (Ptolemy book 1 chap. 13) or square as unfriendly and opposition as inimical (Al-Biruni par. 374); the other sources I have simply do not talk much about the matter.
So I had not found anything really convincing of my assertion, since these are too vague; thank you for helping me on getting a better focus over this matter.

As for the second point, yes, you already highlighted that, I was simply saying that I agree with you.

Anyway, Senecar seemed to consider a square of Saturn always like an affliction, I wanted only to affirm that in my opinion this is not always so, maybe my reasoning had taken a theorical explanation that seemed linked to (some) modern views, but in fact I was contesting them anyway.
Click to expand...


CARMEN ASTROLOGICUM Dorotheus of Sidon Book One :smile:
translated by David Pingree http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dorotheus1.pdf

CARMEN ASTROLOGICUM Dorotheus of Sidon Book Two
translated by David Pingree http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dorotheus2.pdf

CARMEN ASTROLOGICUM Dorotheus of Sidon Book Three
translated by David Pingree http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dorotheus3.pdf
 
SteveGus

SteveGus

Well-known member
My Saturn is in the twelfth house, in Capricorn which is also the ascendant, and the Moon is applying fairly close opposition out of the sixth in Cancer. Both are strongly placed in this configuration.

I've always been a cold and distant person, somewhat lacking in "empathy", and have had a difficult time reading the emotions of others. This is sort of what you might expect given a tug of war between Saturn and the Moon. I don't consider myself extremely intelligent, but my reclusive tendencies make me prefer the company of books to people. I've always wondered to what extent intelligence is a matter of temperament rather than pure brainpower.
 
Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
graay ghost said:
It would not be 2/3rds of all charts have an aspect between Mercury and Saturn. It would depend on what orb one used for aspects.
Click to expand...

In original traditional astrology, aspects are judged by whole sign relation, not degree position (though degree position does have importance).

For example, a planet in Libra is by definition trining each other planet in an air sign (Germini/Aquarius).

The Cat astrologer said:
Thank you for your recommendation.
Still I always saw a sort of ambivalence in the traditional sources about squares, usually they say it's a bad aspect, but indeed they sometimes attribute positive traits or influences to squares.
Also modern astrologers are not unanimous in telling that squares are evil and only evil.
Click to expand...

This isn't exactly so. The particular case applies to when authors describe a particular position and its relation to its ruler. For example, to having a kleros aspect its own dispositor even if it is by square/opposition, or the Ascendant's ruler aspecting the ascending house, or having a poorly situated planet aspect the in-sect benefic (Jupiter/Venus).

The idea is that having a bad connection is more desirable than having no connection at all in these particular cases. In the case of the Ascendant ruler, having no aspect with the Ascendant would mean having the planet in one of the 4 malefic houses.

However, for planets that are unrelated this wouldn't be so. You don't really want your, for example, 10th house ruler in square to the out of sect malefic (lets say Saturn). Having no aspect at all would be better in most cases. If saturn has good dignity, then the damage would be lessen, specially if there is a degree of reception among planets, and it can even add some particular traits that aren't bad. However, its not meant to say that this is better than having no aspect to the malefic planet.
 
S

Solar Flare

Banned
Dirius said:
...

The idea is that having a bad connection is more desirable than having no connection at all in these particular cases. In the case of the Ascendant ruler, having no aspect with the Ascendant would mean having the planet in one of the 4 malefic houses.

...
Click to expand...

I have a question about the 2nd house. It's not aspected by the ascendant which isn't good but would you consider this house malefic? The main connotation of this house is money which isn't a malefic thing in my opinion, neutral at worst. I've also always seen people ascribing negative labels only to the 6th, 8th and 12th houses, but never the 2nd. Do you know of any authors who explicitly state that this house is malefic and explain why? Just really want to know (especially since I have a planet in that house).
 
Top