Mercury sextile/trine Uranus

wayne penner · Jan 16, 2008

I started a Mercury square/opposition Uranus thread so I thought I’d do a favorable aspect thread too. I'm like that.

The trine and sextile are nearly as innovative and brilliant as the square, but is calm in its approach, flexible, socially adept, while the square, brilliant as it is, is awkward and abrupt with others.

The sextile especially is innovative, clever, interesting, engaging, magnetic, broad and sweeping in its thinking, open, humorous, unfazed, strong-willed and perceptive. The trine seems to build enormous self-confidence as well as these qualities, so it is always the one ready with the answer. Make no mistake, these people are very very clever.

Easy aspects are more successful than the square precisely because these people use tact and charm when expressing their opinions, and even if outrageously controversial they always manages to convince others, while the square, with the same idea, simply aggravates others in its obtuse and oblique presentation.

It always brings others into its thinking whereas the square excludes others, preferring to work alone.

It is successful in intellectual pursuits, and enjoys considerable social popularity, especially if in any way related to Venus or Jupiter.

The sextile is more favorable than the trine – the latter is often a “dumb note” and operates externally, probably because of elemental continuance.

However, Mercury always seems to prefer the sextile aspect as it is naturally related to the third house and exalted in the natural ruler of the 11th, Aquarius.

wayne penner · Jan 19, 2008

Shining Ray said:
I have Mercury trine Uranus, Mercury is also my Ascendant ruler (Virgo Asc) and Uranus is in 3rd. I would think the trine is more favorable than the sextiles. Sextiles I hardly feel in my chart, trines are shown as talents and areas where we do not have to try too hard, and we don't feel the energies have any conflict within us, these talents can be taken for granted and we assume everybody has the ability we possess shown by our trines. My Uranus is pretty much well aspected in my chart Uranus sextile Venus trine Moon/Mercury. Jupiter trine Uranus, I do have one square to Uranus which is to Mars in Aquarius. My Uranus is involved in an out of sign grand trine. I would only say I am clever in the non traditional subjects, and can grasp certain ideas quickly. Put me to work on maths or some other subject I dislike and my mind struggles (Mercury/Neptune). If an idea doesn't excite me or interest me I don't bother with it. I notice a lack of focus when I am disinterested.

Shining Ray I think both the trine and sextile are favorable in combining the planets, but in a different sense. Kepler discovered the sextile while the trine is of course ancient.

The trine seems to have ingrained qualities while the sextile has to develop those qualities. It is a 3rd and 11th House aspect and is both more interesting, more intellectual, and less predictable than the trine. By interesting I mean more open to diversion, variegated, tangental but safer than the square. The trine is a bit more predictable, if you will.

The sextile predominates in the charts of genius, both intellectual and artistic, while highly successful people, in a material sense, have powerful trines (and squares to get them out of bed in the morning).

Yoi · Jan 26, 2008

Interesting...But how does the conjunction come into it?

Also Kepler didn't discover the sextile. The sextile has been known as long as the trine. What he discovered was the 5th harmonic or quintile. In fact I think you *are* thinking about the quintile because your talk about how it seems to dominate in charts of genius is commonly used to describe the quintile while I have never heard the sextile described that way. I think you are getting the sextile and quintile confused.

wayne penner · Jan 27, 2008

Yoi said:
Interesting...But how does the conjunction come into it?

Also Kepler didn't discover the sextile. The sextile has been known as long as the trine. What he discovered was the 5th harmonic or quintile. In fact I think you *are* thinking about the quintile because your talk about how it seems to dominate in charts of genius is commonly used to describe the quintile while I have never heard the sextile described that way. I think you are getting the sextile and quintile confused.

Well it would be hard to confuse a sextile and a quintile, even for me.

I have found no usage of the sextile prior to Kepler, although I don't have his complete writings (I do have an original text of William Lilly's Christian Astrology, published in 1647, and he used the sextile extensively after Kepler). The ancient Roman astrologers did not, to my knowledge, refer to a sextile, or 6th Harmonic I suppose if you want to be pedantic. I have a text of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos and can find no reference to a sextile aspect. Actually Ptolemy talked about "co-mingling" rather than hard aspects.

So which authority are you referring to? Perhaps you could enlighten me and give me some direction on when it was discovered and by whom.

On the Quintile, no doubt it is a genius aspect - LOL I have an exact Quintile between Sun and Moon (6 minutes of arc). It is creative and innovative at the same time, broad and flexible in thought.

Clarify your post if you would.

Yoi · Jan 27, 2008

The sextile, along with the conjunction, trine, square and opposition is one of the classical aspects of Ptolemy's Hellenistic astrology.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/astr-hel.htm

Ptolemy's attribution of the nature of planets and stars, which is the basis of their benefic or malefic nature, is that, like Ocellus before him, of heating, drying, moistening, and cooling. The stars in each sign have these qualities too based on their familiarity (oikeiôsis) with the planets. Geometrical aspects between signs, which are the basis of planetary relations, are also based on 'familiarity' determined by music theory and the masculine or feminine assignment to the signs. He considers the sextile and trine aspects to be harmonious, and the quadrangle and opposition to be disharmonious.

You can see this mention of sextiles in Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/astro/ptb/ptb22.htm

ALL signs, between which there does not exist any familiarity in any of the modes above specified, are inconjunct and separated.

For instance, all signs are inconjunct which are neither commanding nor obeying, and not beholding each other nor of equal power, as well as all signs which contain between them the space of one sign only, or the space of five signs, and which do not at all share in any of the four prescribed configurations: viz. the opposition, the trine, the quartile, and the sextile.

Other mentions:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/astro/ptb/ptb58.htm

But, in the prorogation made into succeeding signs, the places of the malefics, Saturn and Mars, are anæretic, whether meeting the prorogator bodily, or by emission of rays in quartile, from either side, or in opposition: they are also sometimes anæretic, by a sextile ray, if in a sign of equal power, obeying or beholding the sign of the prorogator. And even the mere degree, in signs following, in quartile with the

prorogatory place, as also the degree in sextile, if badly afflicted, which is sometimes the case in signs of long ascension, and, still further, the degree in trine, if in signs of short ascension, are all anæretic: so also is the Sun's place, should the Moon be prorogatory.

Prior to your mention here I have never seen sextiles connected with genius (at least without trines being mentioned). Quintiles yes, sextiles no. If you have any sources that mention sextiles (independent of trines) connected with genius please mention them.

Yoi · Jan 27, 2008

http://www.sacred-texts.com/astro/ptb/ptb19.htm

From CHAPTER XVI
MUTUAL CONFIGURATIONS OF THE SIGNS

AC, CB, will make the quartile distance AC; and the division into three aliquot parts, AD, DE, EB, will make the sextile distance AD, and the trinal distance AE. The respective super-proportions (on either side of the intermediate quartile AC, formed by the one right angle AFC), will also again make the quartile AC (if there be added to the sextile, AD, the super-proportion DC, equal to the half of the sextile), and the trine AE (if there be added to the quartile AC the super-proportion CE, equal to the third part of the quartile).

Of these configurations, the trine and the sextile are each called harmonious, because they are constituted between signs of the same kind; being formed between either all feminine or all masculine signs. The opposition and quartile are considered to be discordant, because they are configurations made between signs not of the same kind, but of different natures and sexes.

Ptolemy's work is littered with references to sextiles (and trines). Anyway, do a search on the internet or go to any astrology textbook and you will always find sextiles listed as one of the "Ptolemaic aspects".

wayne penner · Jan 27, 2008

I will certainly accept your point that Ptolemy had the sextile. I didn't see that in the book. Now I do see it.

As for genius, it is a huge issue.

Generally genius is considered an IQ of 148 and above, even though, in America, Mensa requires only an IQ of 133 for entrance.

Now I think this requires a whole separate thread.

gaer · Jan 27, 2008

Two for the Mercury/Uranus sextile:

Thomas Jefferson, Merc in Pis, Uranus in Cap.

Steve Allen: Same sextile, signs reversed.

Interesting coincidence. Two incredibly agile minds, such different people.

I know I've seen the trine in some pretty impressive charts too.

(Add Ella Fiztgerald to your list of people with the square.)

I'm not getting into the debate about who used what aspect, just sharing my data.

wayne penner · Feb 7, 2008

Actually Gaer George Washingon had it, Charles Dickens, Brahms, all had the sextile and all were genius' in their own field. I think the sextile is especially adaptable, far more flexible and pliable than the trine, which seems to be more formal and predictable in action. Trines to me seem easy, sextiles take intelligence but they also stimulate intelligence.

gaer · Feb 8, 2008

wayne penner said:
Actually Gaer George Washingon had it, Charles Dickens, Brahms, all had the sextile and all were genius' in their own field. I think the sextile is especially adaptable, far more flexible and pliable than the trine, which seems to be more formal and predictable in action. Trines to me seem easy, sextiles take intelligence but they also stimulate intelligence.

Just going through presidents, there may be some mistakes. I would welcome some cross-checks, but here is what I have, just based on day of birth:

1: George Washingon: sextile
3: Thomas Jefferson: sextile
5: James Monroe: sextile
19: Rutherford B. Hayes: sextile

It's amazing that except for Hayes, the sextile appeared in three of the first five charts of our presidents.

For the trine:

16: Abraham Lincoln: trine
28: Woodrow Wilson: trine
36: Lyndon Baines Johnson: trine

For the conjunction:

4: James Madison: conjunction

22 and 24: Grover Cleveland: conjunction
30: Calvin Coolidge: conjunction (just over 6 degrees)
40: Ronald Reagan: conjunction

None of the remaining candidates have it.

Square:

6: John Q. Adams: square
11: James K. Polk: square
13: Millard Filmore: square
15: James Buchanan: square
21: Chester A. Arthur: square
35: JFK: square

Finally:

25: William McKinley: semi-sextile
26: Teddy Roosevelt: inconjunct
39: Jimmy Carter: opposition

Almost half our presidents have had some kind of Mercury/Uranus aspect.

What does this mean? At this point I don't know.

Obviously I threw in more than sextiles and trines, but just for comparison.

wayne penner · Feb 8, 2008

Well Gaer you're smarter than you let on ...

Generally I think any contact between Uranus and Mercury will increase the range and breadth of intelligence, often accompanied with massive stubbornness though. The afflictions are brilliant when they're brilliant, but otherwise dull and strange and eccentric, with a really odd energy ... great genius' like Bobby Fischer, Nietzsche, Adolph Hitler, Baudelaire, Winston Churchill, Voltaire etc. all had the affliction.

The trines and sextiles are generally much more sociable and of course much more popular with others.

Generally I think the sextile is more successful than the trine in a practical sense as it is more tactful and less "in your face". Uranus is much too strong for Mercury and pulls and pushes it about if you will, behaving as the bully it is. It generally causes great inner tension even in good aspect. I think the sextile is better than the trine for sheer creative intelligence.

wayne penner · Feb 8, 2008

Shining Ray said:
I wouldn't say the sextile is stronger than the trine. The trine is usually of the the same element so there is a better flow through that element. How would you describe the different Mercury trine Uranus's by element.

Fire
Earth
Water
Air

What do you think each one means. I think depending on element it would give different intuitive abilities within the houses placed as well. I am just not sure I would put so much weight on sextiles, I would take the trine as more evident in the chart even if the abilities are taken for granted.

Shining Ray I did not mean to imply that the sextile is stronger than the trine, it's the other way around, but I do think, for practical pujrposes that the sextile is more successful, especially in it's dealings with others. This aspect can often be tactless and witless without even realizing it, and this is especially the case with the square of course. Because the sextile has to do with 3rd and 11th House matters I think there is more sensitivity toward others and perhaps a more empathetic attitude. The square, and sometimes the trine, tends to ride roughshod over others' opinions.

It is also useful in combining different elements, and I especially like Fire and Air combinations as these seem to naturally inspire and stimulate the imagination. I think this goes for most aspects to Mercury though.

gaer · Feb 8, 2008

wayne penner said:
Shining Ray I did not mean to imply that the sextile is stronger than the trine, it's the other way around, but I do think, for practical pujrposes that the sextile is more successful, especially in it's dealings with others. This aspect can often be tactless and witless without even realizing it, and this is especially the case with the square of course. Because the sextile has to do with 3rd and 11th House matters I think there is more sensitivity toward others and perhaps a more empathetic attitude. The square, and sometimes the trine, tends to ride roughshod over others' opinions.

It is also useful in combining different elements, and I especially like Fire and Air combinations as these seem to naturally inspire and stimulate the imagination. I think this goes for most aspects to Mercury though.

I don't agree that the trine "tends to ride roughshod over others' opinions".

The reason the sextile may appear to be more successful, and the square even more so, is that harder aspects indicate internal conflict and propel people to prove themselves to the world.

However, I don't think that the sextile shows the same aggressiveness or abrasiveness as the square.

I have Uranus (Cancer) trine Mercury (Scorpio), with both planets sextile to Saturn (Virgo). If I'm pushed, I can go toe to toe with anyone in a debate, and if someone makes me really angry, I'll do it.

However, I prefer to make my points peacefully. With Mercury square Uranus, debates easily turn into a blood-sport.

wayne penner · Feb 8, 2008

gaer said:
I don't agree that the trine "tends to ride roughshod over others' opinions".

The reason the sextile may appear to be more successful, and the square even more so, is that harder aspects indicate internal conflict and propel people to prove themselves to the world.

However, I don't think that the sextile shows the same aggressiveness or abrasiveness as the square.

I have Uranus (Cancer) trine Mercury (Scorpio), with both planets sextile to Saturn (Virgo). If I'm pushed, I can go toe to toe with anyone in a debate, and if someone makes me really angry, I'll do it.

However, I prefer to make my points peacefully. With Mercury square Uranus, debates easily turn into a blood-sport.

Gaer I don't think I said that the sextile is as aggressive as the square, but it is Mercury Retro time and easy to be misunderstood.

While the combination is talented in any aspect the sextile is more successful in the world I think precisely because it is more subtle and less direct than the trine, and certainly the square or opposition, the latter being yery problematic for personal relationships.

To be honest I think Mercury benefits most by favorable aspects with Moon and Saturn, and perhaps Pluto. Actually I think even the squares of Mercury and Saturn are mostly favorable because the two have so much in common.

My point is essentially that Uranus is too unruly an influence internally to really pair up well with Mercury, under any aspect, but the sextile is the least problematic.

gaer · Feb 8, 2008

wayne penner said:
Gaer I don't think I said that the sextile is as aggressive as the square, but it is Mercury Retro time and easy to be misunderstood.

No, you didn't. And yes, this is a bad time for clear communication.

While the combination is talented in any aspect the sextile is more successful in the world I think precisely because it is more subtle and less direct than the trine, and certainly the square or opposition, the latter being yery problematic for personal relationships.

It's a very hard matter to decide whether the square or the opposition is more difficult.

On one hand, you could point to Jimmy Carter, a man I admire as a human being but who I think was one of our weakest presidents.

Then again there is Bob Newhart. Both have the opposition.

To be honest I think Mercury benefits most by favorable aspects with Moon and Saturn, and perhaps Pluto. Actually I think even the squares of Mercury and Saturn are mostly favorable because the two have so much in common.

I think Saturn is good for discplining the mind, and it doesn't just point towards dry, intellectual, "nerdy" pursuits. However, the square (again) creates more friction.

Jack Paar would be a perfect example. With Saturn square Mercury (and Neptune) and Mercury sextile Uranus, you can see the brilliant mind, but you can also see why he fought with people (also Mars square Jupiter).

On the other hand, Steven Allen also had Mercury sextile Uranus and square Saturn, also opposite Pluto, and I don't recall any tantrums from him. Now, the question: what was he like when he was still in his teens and twenties? Did he have to master himself?

By the way, he had Sun conjunct Mercury, but combust, not cazimi, and I don't see that the combust position was any drawback for him!

My point is essentially that Uranus is too unruly an influence internally to really pair up well with Mercury, under any aspect, but the sextile is the least problematic.

I think Uranus and Mercury work well together in either the sextile or the trine, and we have to look to other aspects (to other planets) or elsewhere in the chart to see how it will play out.

EDIT: I just realized that Allen and Paar were the first and second hosts of the Tonight Show. How appropriate that they would share the Mercury/Saturn/Uranus configuration. They were born three years apart!

wayne penner · Feb 8, 2008

Shining Ray, Gaer, that's the first I've heard that the trine can be ignored. That's a new concept for me although I understand what she is getting at - the aspect is sort of ingrained into the psyche and so expresses itself almost unconsciously.

It's definitely worth a thought ... but my first response would be that all aspects should be considered, and while trines are kind of passive and easy they are essential to the psychology of the individual, a sort of psychological chassis if you will.

I read somewhere that Guatama Buddha was born with only trines in his chart, although I can't remember the source of that particular "fact".

I have known several people with many trines and have found them generally easy-going, passive, and somewhat lazy, as if they just expect good fortune to come their way.

Some of the old writers (Sepharial and Alan Leo come to mind) considered the Grand Trine to be positively unfavorable.

gaer · Feb 8, 2008

wayne penner said:
Shining Ray, Gaer, that's the first I've heard that the trine can be ignored. That's a new concept for me although I understand what she is getting at - the aspect is sort of ingrained into the psyche and so expresses itself almost unconsciously.

I think it all depends upon where the trine is, and what it connects to. Just to make my own points clear, I never mentioned a word about ignoring trines. I think I understand what Shining Ray means though. I need to read her post more carefully.

It's definitely worth a thought ... but my first response would be that all aspects should be considered, and while trines are kind of passive and easy they are essential to the psychology of the individual, a sort of psychological chassis if you will.

I would not want someone to ignore my trine. I think it's central to who I am. Any one who knows me well will tell you that I definitely think outside the box. I see patterns easily, have taught myself foreign languages, and I was a prodigy. Am I lazy? I don't think so. But I don't care about fame. That could be confused with fame. I also hate arguing. I think that also relates to the trine.

I have known several people with many trines and have found them generally easy-going, passive, and somewhat lazy, as if they just expect good fortune to come their way.

I would not disagree with that, but I've seen very few charts (if any) that are that one-sided. Most contain mixtures of easy and hard aspects.

Some of the old writers (Sepharial and Alan Leo come to mind) considered the Grand Trine to be positively unfavorable.

[/QUOTE]
I'd want to see proof of that. I'd want to see many charts of people with grand trines who are somehow more unhappy, less successful and so on than people with out them. However, I DO find that along with an impressive looking grand trine we often find very difficult aspects. For instance, it is not rare at all to find a difficult T-square and a grand trine in the same chart.

Do you have some examples in mind? When you mentioned Saturn and Pluto, I gave you back an example (Steven Allen). I feel that using example charts, as many as possible, is the best way of discussing such points.

Gaer

tonlesap · Feb 20, 2008

dont mean to go off topic but something i found interesting between mercury/uranus and mercury/neptune aspects. i have mercury trine neptune. dont know how true this is though.

http://books.google.com/books?id=dR...s+iq&sig=NGpr2hpRxxE0GlGL17EBbzKjOzs#PPA48,M1

gaer · Feb 20, 2008

tonlesap said:
dont mean to go off topic but something i found interesting between mercury/uranus and mercury/neptune aspects. i have mercury trine neptune. dont know how true this is though.

http://books.google.com/books?id=dR8UNFlhBGoC&pg=PA48&dq=mercury+neptune+contacts+iq&sig=NGpr2hpRxxE0GlGL17EBbzKjOzs#PPA48,M1

I did look at the text, but here is what I would have said without reading it:

1) Of course one aspect can't tell us whether we are dealing with someone very intelligent, average, or slow.

2) Uranus/Mercury does have to do with how we think, but we also have to examine the whole chart as well as the houses Mercury and Uranus are in.

3) The same exact thing is true of Neptune/Mercury. I don't believe for a moment that this aspect, alone, is any better an indication of intelligence. However, I do find it frequently in people who are especially creative, so it is indicating another KIND of intelligence.

4) The strongest indication is when there are aspects between all of them.

5) This is just from my own research. When you see none of the above aspects from Mercury to Uranus or Neptune, you often find them to Pallas

6) Most impressive is Mercury AND Pallas BOTH aspecting BOTH Uranus and Neptune.

This is just my personal experience…

Gaer

tonlesap · Feb 21, 2008

okay, i am like a real amateur in astrology so forgive me for asking a seemingly dumb question. does the house and other aspects to these other planets really matter? like for instance, u have sun in sagittarius in the 2nd house, does that mean u only display sagittarian traits/qualities relating specifically to 2nd house matters? like material possessions, security, etc?

see, i thought the house was there to just put an emphasis on where those traits/qualities that came from a specific placement or aspect would manifest themselves. but does it take away the fact that those traits are there nonetheless despite where the house is located?

gaer said:
I did look at the text, but here is what I would have said without reading it:

1) Of course one aspect can't tell us whether we are dealing with someone very intelligent, average, or slow.

2) Uranus/Mercury does have to do with how we think, but we also have to examine the whole chart as well as the houses Mercury and Uranus are in.

3) The same exact thing is true of Neptune/Mercury. I don't believe for a moment that this aspect, alone, is any better an indication of intelligence. However, I do find it frequently in people who are especially creative, so it is indicating another KIND of intelligence.

4) The strongest indication is when there are aspects between all of them.

5) This is just from my own research. When you see none of the above aspects from Mercury to Uranus or Neptune, you often find them to Pallas

6) Most impressive is Mercury AND Pallas BOTH aspecting BOTH Uranus and Neptune.

This is just my personal experience…

Gaer

Mercury sextile/trine Uranus

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Member