Mercury-Uranus

Q&A and discussion on Aspects.
Post Reply
sotonye
Zodiac Member
Zodiac Member
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:27 pm

Mercury-Uranus

Post by sotonye » Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:43 pm

Moon-Jupiter is considered the most common close aspect for presidents with 10 having the configuration so far, but after going through each president’s chart this morning I found something unexpected! Mercury-Uranus beats Moon-Jupiter by 1 in frequency, although there may be more instances of Moon-Jupiter flying under the radar due to missing birth times for many who have held the highest office. At any rate, this is interesting, a real curiosity, I mean, why this aspect? What did it do for those men? Inspire a sense of thrill in their listeners? Did it captivate them? I don’t know, what do you think

Here are the presidents who’ve had this aspect:

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Woodrow Wilson
Millard Fillmore
Abraham Lincoln
Rutherford B. Hayes
Grover Cleveland
warren g harding
Lyndon b Johnson
Jimmy Carter

Veronica
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1092
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:37 am
Gender:

Re: Mercury-Uranus

Post by Veronica » Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:15 pm

sotonye wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:43 pm
Moon-Jupiter is considered the most common close aspect for presidents with 10 having the configuration so far, but after going through each president’s chart this morning I found something unexpected! Mercury-Uranus beats Moon-Jupiter by 1 in frequency, although there may be more instances of Moon-Jupiter flying under the radar due to missing birth times for many who have held the highest office. At any rate, this is interesting, a real curiosity, I mean, why this aspect? What did it do for those men? Inspire a sense of thrill in their listeners? Did it captivate them? I don’t know, what do you think

Here are the presidents who’ve had this aspect:

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Woodrow Wilson
Millard Fillmore
Abraham Lincoln
Rutherford B. Hayes
Grover Cleveland
warren g harding
Lyndon b Johnson
Jimmy Carter
you never know what can come out of the mouth of a person with Mercury Uranus in thier chart.
thrilling?
shocking?
Outlandish?
NGAF?
prayers or curses abound for sure

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 10247
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Mercury-Uranus

Post by Jim Eshelman » Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:04 pm

Moon-Jupiter is the most common, by most ways of tabulating this. How many times an aspect is present depends, of course, on how you count it. Mercury-Jupiter and Mercury-Uranus are also extremely common.

In all the aspect studies on which Donald Bradley reported, the strongest statistically significant importance dropped off (fell from "out of the ordinary" to "statistically ordinary") somewhere in the 3° to 4° range. Therefore, the simplest may to tabulate aspects for such a study (and have the results most resemble the results from much more complicated, rigorous approaches) is to count the Class 1 aspects, which I functionally define as conjunctions and oppositions with 4° and trines, sextiles, and squares within 3°. There are other approaches, but this is the most straightforward. Other approaches include such things as giving hard aspects more weight than soft aspects (just to name the one that has most often been useful).

Of the 44 men who have been U.S. President to date, if we take a raw count of Class 1 aspects, Moon-Jupiter is the clear leader, with Moon-Mars, Mercury-Jupiter, and Mercury-Uranus tying for second place. If we weight the hard aspects, Moon-Jupiter pulls further ahead, and Mercury-Uranus in particular falls back (I assume this is because there are more trines and sextiles in the mix, so they don't score as high) and Venus-Pluto rises to a big second place, Mercury-Jupiter in third (Venus-Jupiter has a higher percentage of hard aspects, so it scores better). If you count only hard aspects, Moon-Jupiter is waayyy out in the lead, with Venus-Pluto, Mercury-Pluto, and Sun-Moon tied for second. It depends on how you count.

Now, let's go back and count...
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 10247
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Mercury-Uranus

Post by Jim Eshelman » Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:08 pm

Counting only Class 1 aspects (all five Ptolemaic aspects), 10 presidents had Moon-Jupiter aspects (the ones in bold being hard aspects):

John Quincy Adams
James K. Polk
Rutherford B. Hayes
Benjamin Harrison
William McKinley

Woodrow Wilson
Dwight David Eisenhower
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush

Barack Obama

Nine had Mercury-Jupiter aspects:

George Washington
James K. Polk
Zachary Taylor
Millard Fillmore

Herbert Hoover
Dwight David Eisenhower
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Richard M. Nixon
Barack Obama


Also, nine had Mercury-Uranus aspects:

Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Millard Fillmore

Abraham Lincoln
Rutherford B. Hayes
Grover Cleveland
Woodrow Wilson
Lyndon Baines Johnson
James Earl Carter

Just for a more complete picture, the three aspects which did well in hard-only counts should be listed to so that you can see how these relate to the mix. Only eight presidents have had Moon-Sun aspects, but all but two of them were hard:

Thomas Jefferson
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams
Andrew Jackson
William McKinley
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush
Donald Trump


Only six presidents have had Mercury=Pluto aspects and all six were hard:

Abraham Lincoln
Theodore Roosevelt
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Harry S Truman
Richard M. Nixon
George W. Bush


Eight have had Venus-Pluto aspects, all but two of them hard aspects:

Thomas Jefferson
Andrew Jackson

Martin Van Buren
William Henry Harrison
Millard Fillmore
Benjamin Harrison
Dwight David Eisenhower

Bill Clinton
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 10247
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Mercury-Uranus

Post by Jim Eshelman » Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:25 pm

In any case, Mercury-Uranus, while not the strongest, definitely placed strongly, especially if we make no distinction between hard and soft aspects. Your main question was what in the world Mercury-Uranus might have to do with being president.

When someone has a strong Mercury-Uranus aspect, we expect some traits that seem quite fitting for a U.S. president and some traits that do not - or at least do not seem practical for a politician.

The common traits that fit are: They are independent thinker with curiosity and an investigative spirit, with many diverse, varied interests (they are interested in more or less everything). Their minds solve problems and integrate data more intuitively and quickly. Their speech engages others’ attention, and they usually have something interesting to say: They dare to speak up despite consequences.

The traits that don't seem quite so useful to a politician is that they aren't usually careful of what they say, have a gently rebellious streak that almost wants to get in trouble somehow, and may seem socially odd (though people do not tend to ostracize or exclude them for it).
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

sotonye
Zodiac Member
Zodiac Member
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:27 pm

Re: Mercury-Uranus

Post by sotonye » Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:51 am

I’ve been taking my time thinking about this one and it has really stumped me. What do you think it means Mr. E that some aspects tend toward being hard for presidents? It’s extremely strange to me and I didn’t realize this was happening. Only hard aspects for Mercury-Pluto? Most Moon-Jupiter aspects had by presidents are hard? Why not soft? This is so strange

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 10247
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Mercury-Uranus

Post by Jim Eshelman » Sun Feb 23, 2020 1:20 pm

sotonye wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:51 am
I’ve been taking my time thinking about this one and it has really stumped me. What do you think it means Mr. E that some aspects tend toward being hard for presidents? It’s extremely strange to me and I didn’t realize this was happening. Only hard aspects for Mercury-Pluto? Most Moon-Jupiter aspects had by presidents are hard? Why not soft? This is so strange
Any answer has to be speculative, but let's take this back to principle.

First, the most important thing in an aspect is the planets involved. There is less difference between any type of (say) Mercury-Uranus aspect than between that and an aspect of different planets; but there are at least clear distinctions between the broad categories of aspects, especially hard vs. soft. (Aspects can be distinguished by what planets are involved, how angular the planets are, the orb of the aspect, the type of aspect, and to a lesser extent by the signs occupied).

Hard or Dynamic aspects express dynamic action, incentive, and movement. They are more instinctual, direct, and impulse-driven. Soft or Static aspects are more placid, quiet, and still, are least likely to express dynamically or effect change or action. One can, in the beginning, think of them as being weaker than dynamic aspects or supplementing hard aspects - just to develop a feel for it - but this arises out of their more structured nature. They often seem intellectual and rational-cognitive rather than instinctual.

A very common, useful way to look at these in practice (in a given chart) is to say that dynamic aspects have a more driven, pressured need to express their fundamental psychological energy.

Within this framework, we can theorize about why some of the above aspects would favor one mode or another. Moon-Jupiter hard aspects are going to be more driven, compulsive, and insistent in their expression, taking overt action with respect to the fundamental Moon-Jupiter energies of optimism, fortune, ambition as an adaptation, and family. This is going to be more pointedly ambitious, taking action to further the good, dynamically optimistic, etc. In contrast, the static aspects are going to express the same energy in a more placid, quiet, still way - they themselges are more placid, quiet, and still in expressing it, which is consistent with the leisurely, relaxed, unpressured nature of Jupiter. We would expect such people to be more philosophical, reflective, less insistent, and generally more placid and relaxed in their expression of psychological energies related to optimism, fortune, ambition as an adaptation, and family. Quietly optimistic, feeling fortune and inclined to fortune without effort, more conceptually than actively ambitious, etc.

To test this, we would expect from the presidents more intense, visibly active and driven ambition in James K. Polk, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, WIlliam McKinley, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. I don't know as much about the 19th Century presidents, but it's certainly true for the rest (and I know it was so for Polk, who also drove hard the idea of America's "Manifest Destiny" to own and rule the entire continent). In contrast, we would expect something different from the gracious John Q. Adams, the professorial Woodrow WIlson, and the "trying to make this look easy and not look too ambitious" Barack Obama. -- Remember all of these have more in common than who do not have a close Moon-Jupiter aspect, but I think the data supports two diffeent types of pressure on these ideas.

In contrast, let's look at Mercury-Uranus aspects. The basic principle of this aspect is mental renewal, independent mind, discovery, and surprise. With the dynamic aspects, we would expect dynamic, insistent, high-pressure need for mental renewal and independence of mind. I think this is basically the kind of Mercury-Uranus person who needs to make a point that they think differently than you, that they are unbeholden to others' opinions. There is a powerful driving need for mental refreshment, for avoiding boredom, for thinking quickly and differently, and for being exempt from the way people usually think about things (Not so useful a way to be when campaigning for people's acceptance and getting them to think that you are like them.) OTOH, the Mercury-Uranus static aspects do not have this high-pressure need for dynamic action or insistence. They will be more placid, quiet, or still in their expression of the needs for mental renewal, independent mind, discovery, etc. For example, they may disagree with you or think differently than you but not need to make a point about it. Mercury soft aspects especially tend to be cognitive, a bit stubborn (static) in thinking, etc. These people often are viewed as smart and forward-thinking and seen less as cantankerous and assertive regarding their independence.

The presidents with close dynamic Mercury-Uranus aspects were James Madison, Millard FIllmore, Grover Cleveland, and Jimmy Carter. To the extent I know them, there is a persistent stubbornness though no shortage of brilliance, insightful thought, and candor on their divergent views. (Jimmy Carter didn't just become so forthright when he got old :) .) OTOH, the static Mercury-Uranus aspects fell to thoughtful, ingenious figures like Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Rutherford B. Hayes, Woodrow WIlson, and (otherwise not shy) Lyndon Johnson. In looking at this list, I see brilliant coalition builders, figures (Jefferson and Lincoln alone!) known for their progressive and brilliant, inspiring thought and words that have impacted the country for centuries, the professorial Wilson (who is a stand-out as a rare Democrat elected post Civil War, and an opening for his party to return to the national stage in general).

That's how I would think about these in principle and I think it gives an opening to the "why." These take on subtleties when looked at in the scope of the entire chart. For example, I don't know how we can separate any Uranus aspect in Lincoln's chart from the fact that he had an Aquarius Sun; yet, even then, his brilliance had an almost gentle feel to it (but without losing any candor). Complexities to consider in looking at this aspect for Lincoln include:

Mercury is very widely foreground, Uranus background (but stationary). The aspect will have a voice, but more through Uranus' effect on a Mercury that has a strong curiosity and, perhaps, need to be heard. The aspect is close, so the need for expression of its psychological energy is strong; yet it is static, so it need not be expressed dynamically, overtly, but can flourish through a flexible intellect. In fact, since Mercury has important hard aspects - a somewhat close conjunction with Pluto, a moderate square with Neptune (and one could count the partile octile with Mars) - the Mercury-Uranus trine, while close, is more of a supportive resource for these more dynamic expressions. Finally, since Mercury is in Aquarius it will have Uranus-like traits anyway, and as the trine falls Aquarius-Libra we will expect such added traits as greater intuition and a mind set on socially progressive thought.

Or something like that.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest