Guest guest Posted September 11, 2006 Report Share Posted September 11, 2006 According to the previous studies, what Mercury would not seem to be? Mercury does not generally seem to be about scholarliness, about studies that require patience, about libraries or laboratories, or about dusty old books. It's not about archives or about painstakingly collecting old information. It's about inventiveness, creativity, novelty, tricks, changing opinions, questionging, ridiculing, being skilled in something, explainging one's way out. If one thinks, like I do, that the meaning of planets have adjusted to suit their roles as tropical sign rulers, then the real Mercury would be a mix of Western/tropical Moon and Venus. And yes indeed, Mercury has the creativity and superficiality of the tropical Venus, and the changeability, sensitivity to the moment, and inclination to go with the flow, that's usually given to the tropical Moon. Regards, Sari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Hi, Sari... A perfect example of what you're talking about: Arnold Schwartzenegger, the current governor or California. He's a master at reinventing himself, going from business owner to body builder to movie star to politician. He's also an entrepreneur, owning malls, gyms, and so on. He has Mercury about 1 degree from his Gemini ascendant. One adjective that could be attributed to Mercury (or mercurial people) is " clever " . I think those other things you mentioned (scholarliness, libraries, books, etc) also have to do with Mercury, just maybe not on the asc. Of the people I know who are or have been librarians or worked in libraries (myself included), Mercury is often angular. ....Bettina On Behalf Of Sari Metsovuori Monday, September 11, 2006 2:01 AM Conclusions about Mercury According to the previous studies, what Mercury would not seem to be? Mercury does not generally seem to be about scholarliness, about studies that require patience, about libraries or laboratories, or about dusty old books. It's not about archives or about painstakingly collecting old information. It's about inventiveness, creativity, novelty, tricks, changing opinions, questionging, ridiculing, being skilled in something, explainging one's way out. If one thinks, like I do, that the meaning of planets have adjusted to suit their roles as tropical sign rulers, then the real Mercury would be a mix of Western/tropical Moon and Venus. And yes indeed, Mercury has the creativity and superficiality of the tropical Venus, and the changeability, sensitivity to the moment, and inclination to go with the flow, that's usually given to the tropical Moon. Regards, Sari " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- Post message: Subscribe: - Un: - List owner: -owner Shortcut URL to this page: / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Hi Bettina, you wrote: > A perfect example of what you're talking about: Arnold Schwartzenegger, > the > current governor or California. He's a master at reinventing himself, > going > from business owner to body builder to movie star to politician. He's also > an entrepreneur, owning malls, gyms, and so on. He has Mercury about 1 > degree from his Gemini ascendant. > > One adjective that could be attributed to Mercury (or mercurial people) is > " clever " . Sari: - Wow, you're right, Schwarzenegger is a perfect example. ADB talks about a " magnificently sculpted body " . Regards, Sari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Sari. I'm thinking that when a person has the asc ruler on the asc there is much concern with their own body. One of my sons has Moon on the asc in Cancer and he's into working out at the gym, lifting weights, etc. So, the interest in ones own physicality probably has more to do with the focus of the self on the physical self more than whether or not it's Mercury. Mercury would have to do with cleverness and inventiveness, though. I wonder how it is with people with Saturn on the asc in Capricorn or Aquarius? I can't think of any I've known right now. ..Bettina _____ On Behalf Of Sari Metsovuori Monday, September 11, 2006 10:22 PM Re: Conclusions about Mercury Hi Bettina, you wrote: > A perfect example of what you're talking about: Arnold Schwartzenegger, > the > current governor or California. He's a master at reinventing himself, > going > from business owner to body builder to movie star to politician. He's also > an entrepreneur, owning malls, gyms, and so on. He has Mercury about 1 > degree from his Gemini ascendant. > > One adjective that could be attributed to Mercury (or mercurial people) is > " clever " . Sari: - Wow, you're right, Schwarzenegger is a perfect example. ADB talks about a " magnificently sculpted body " . Regards, Sari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 Hi Bettina, you wrote: > I'm thinking that when a person has the asc ruler on the asc there is much > concern with their own body. One of my sons has Moon on the asc in Cancer > and he's into working out at the gym, lifting weights, etc. So, the > interest in ones own physicality probably has more to do with the focus of > the self on the physical self more than whether or not it's Mercury. > Mercury would have to do with cleverness and inventiveness, though. I > wonder how it is with people with Saturn on the asc in Capricorn or > Aquarius? I can't think of any I've known right now. Sari: I've studied three planets so far with this " ascendant ruler on the ascendant " method (posts #6415 - the Moon; #6427 - Saturn; and #6434 and #6435 - Mercury). They contain together 24 charts with the asc ruler on the ascendant - so according to your premise all these people should have a special concern with their own body. But I didn't notice that. I don't know nothing about Karl Marx' (Saturn on the Aquarius ascendant) relationship with his own body, nor Michael Shermer's (Mercury on the Virgo ascendant). But all these groups differed according to the signs and planets in question, and I think they showed quite clearly the different natures of the planets. The Moon people were different than the Mercury people, and the Saturn people had their own flair. I believe that if I make studies with the rest of the planets, they all will show at least some side of the planet's quality. --------------------- I made a study yesterday to find out if Mercury really relates to verbal skills. I took charts in ADB classified as " Extraordinary talents - for Languages " and " Extraordinary talents - for Verbal skills " . I found 51 charts classifed as B or higher, born after 1850 (Parashara's Light 6.1.5 doesn't always calculate older charts correctly). I calculated the shadbala (a hindu astrology method to calculate a numeral strenght of a planet) procents of the planets together (using PL) , each planet separately, to get shadbala strenghts of an " Average Verbally Skilled Linguistic " . Now, if a strong Mercury would indicate good verbal/linguistic skills, it should come out, at least a little. What I got was very average shadbalas. Mars was the strongest planet, with 137 % over the limit where it's generally considered strong. Saturn was the second strongest with 127 %. Then came Venus with 126 %, the Moon, 117 %, Jupiter 115%, the Sun 109 % and finally Mercury 108 %. But this is not the final result, because some planets (Mars and Saturn) tend to get higher shadbala procents than others (Mercury tends generally to be a bit lower than other planets). Earlier I had put 90 persons that interested me (both celebrities and people personally known to me) in a ranking list according to the shadbala strengths of their planets, again each planet separately. The point was to find out what kind of people really have a certain planet strong, and who have it weak. But now I can use that study the evaluate the real strength of planets of my " Average Verbally Skilled Linguistic " by seeing where he is placed in the shadbala rankings. The position decides the real strenght of the planets. The planets were really quite average. Mars was the highest, he was ranked as # 41. the Sun was # 43; Jupiter and Venus were both # 44, the Moon was #46, Saturn was #47 and Mercury was lowest # 51. The differences are not so big that we could make any definite conclusions, but what I found really surprising (the truth is that it was not so surprising for me, I had noted earlier that Mercury does not necessarily correlate with verbalism) is that Mercury is clearly the weakest planet of our Average Verbally Skilled Linguistic. I really don't think that Mercury is a verbal planet by essence. I think it'm more about other kinds of creativity. Now, if someone thinks that shadbala tells nothing, it's easy to study if these 51 verbally skilled linguistics have exalted planets and what they are. I created a research database where ADB calculates an occasional control group for the research group, and looked which planets are exalted. The result was: The Moon: 81,8% more often exalted than in the in average charts (six exalted Moons, averagely should have been 3,3) Jupiter: 11,1 % more often exalted than in the average charts. All the other planets were less than averagely exalted: Mars - 4,8% Saturn -26,8% Venus - 37,5% Mercury -41,2% the Sun -78,3% Verbally / linguistically gifted people have clearly less exalted Mercurys than average people. I reconstructred the study by looking at planets in their own signs. The Moon and Jupiter got again highest procents (27,7% and 26,8% respectively) and the Sun and Mercury got the lowest points (-75,0% and -75,6% respectively). No matter what I do, I cannot find strong Mercurys in these people's charts. Regards, Sari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 Sari. Sorry I'd missed some of what you wrote in the recent past; I'd been off the Sidereal board for about a week. Very mysterious, but now I'm back on again. You are excellent at research. I guess I'm more anecdotal, using the horoscopes of personal acquaintances for the understanding of astrology. Anyhow, you are a great person to have on this board. Your letters are gems! ..Bettina _____ On Behalf Of Sari Metsovuori Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:52 PM Re: Conclusions about Mercury Hi Bettina, you wrote: > I'm thinking that when a person has the asc ruler on the asc there is much > concern with their own body. One of my sons has Moon on the asc in Cancer > and he's into working out at the gym, lifting weights, etc. So, the > interest in ones own physicality probably has more to do with the focus of > the self on the physical self more than whether or not it's Mercury. > Mercury would have to do with cleverness and inventiveness, though. I > wonder how it is with people with Saturn on the asc in Capricorn or > Aquarius? I can't think of any I've known right now. Sari: I've studied three planets so far with this " ascendant ruler on the ascendant " method (posts #6415 - the Moon; #6427 - Saturn; and #6434 and #6435 - Mercury). They contain together 24 charts with the asc ruler on the ascendant - so according to your premise all these people should have a special concern with their own body. But I didn't notice that. I don't know nothing about Karl Marx' (Saturn on the Aquarius ascendant) relationship with his own body, nor Michael Shermer's (Mercury on the Virgo ascendant). But all these groups differed according to the signs and planets in question, and I think they showed quite clearly the different natures of the planets. The Moon people were different than the Mercury people, and the Saturn people had their own flair. I believe that if I make studies with the rest of the planets, they all will show at least some side of the planet's quality. --------------------- I made a study yesterday to find out if Mercury really relates to verbal skills. I took charts in ADB classified as " Extraordinary talents - for Languages " and " Extraordinary talents - for Verbal skills " . I found 51 charts classifed as B or higher, born after 1850 (Parashara's Light 6.1.5 doesn't always calculate older charts correctly). I calculated the shadbala (a hindu astrology method to calculate a numeral strenght of a planet) procents of the planets together (using PL) , each planet separately, to get shadbala strenghts of an " Average Verbally Skilled Linguistic " . Now, if a strong Mercury would indicate good verbal/linguistic skills, it should come out, at least a little. What I got was very average shadbalas. Mars was the strongest planet, with 137 % over the limit where it's generally considered strong. Saturn was the second strongest with 127 %. Then came Venus with 126 %, the Moon, 117 %, Jupiter 115%, the Sun 109 % and finally Mercury 108 %. But this is not the final result, because some planets (Mars and Saturn) tend to get higher shadbala procents than others (Mercury tends generally to be a bit lower than other planets). Earlier I had put 90 persons that interested me (both celebrities and people personally known to me) in a ranking list according to the shadbala strengths of their planets, again each planet separately. The point was to find out what kind of people really have a certain planet strong, and who have it weak. But now I can use that study the evaluate the real strength of planets of my " Average Verbally Skilled Linguistic " by seeing where he is placed in the shadbala rankings. The position decides the real strenght of the planets. The planets were really quite average. Mars was the highest, he was ranked as # 41. the Sun was # 43; Jupiter and Venus were both # 44, the Moon was #46, Saturn was #47 and Mercury was lowest # 51. The differences are not so big that we could make any definite conclusions, but what I found really surprising (the truth is that it was not so surprising for me, I had noted earlier that Mercury does not necessarily correlate with verbalism) is that Mercury is clearly the weakest planet of our Average Verbally Skilled Linguistic. I really don't think that Mercury is a verbal planet by essence. I think it'm more about other kinds of creativity. Now, if someone thinks that shadbala tells nothing, it's easy to study if these 51 verbally skilled linguistics have exalted planets and what they are. I created a research database where ADB calculates an occasional control group for the research group, and looked which planets are exalted. The result was: The Moon: 81,8% more often exalted than in the in average charts (six exalted Moons, averagely should have been 3,3) Jupiter: 11,1 % more often exalted than in the average charts. All the other planets were less than averagely exalted: Mars - 4,8% Saturn -26,8% Venus - 37,5% Mercury -41,2% the Sun -78,3% Verbally / linguistically gifted people have clearly less exalted Mercurys than average people. I reconstructred the study by looking at planets in their own signs. The Moon and Jupiter got again highest procents (27,7% and 26,8% respectively) and the Sun and Mercury got the lowest points (-75,0% and -75,6% respectively). No matter what I do, I cannot find strong Mercurys in these people's charts. Regards, Sari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 > > I made a study yesterday to find out if Mercury really relates to verbal > skills. I took charts in ADB classified as " Extraordinary talents - for > Languages " and " Extraordinary talents - for Verbal skills " . I found 51 > charts classifed as B or higher, born after 1850 (Parashara's Light 6.1.5 > doesn't always calculate older charts correctly). I calculated the shadbala > (a hindu astrology method to calculate a numeral strenght of a planet) > procents of the planets together (using PL) , each planet separately, to get > shadbala strenghts of an " Average Verbally Skilled Linguistic " . Now, if a > strong Mercury would indicate good verbal/linguistic skills, it should come > out, at least a little. > > What I got was very average shadbalas. Mars was the strongest planet, with > 137 % over the limit where it's generally considered strong. Saturn was the > second strongest with 127 %. Then came Venus with 126 %, the Moon, 117 %, > Jupiter 115%, the Sun 109 % and finally Mercury 108 %. But this is not the > final result, because some planets (Mars and Saturn) tend to get higher > shadbala procents than others (Mercury tends generally to be a bit lower > than other planets). > > Earlier I had put 90 persons that interested me (both celebrities and people > personally known to me) in a ranking list according to the shadbala > strengths of their planets, again each planet separately. The point was to > find out what kind of people really have a certain planet strong, and who > have it weak. But now I can use that study the evaluate the real strength of > planets of my " Average Verbally Skilled Linguistic " by seeing where he is > placed in the shadbala rankings. The position decides the real strenght of > the planets. > > The planets were really quite average. Mars was the highest, he was ranked > as # 41. the Sun was # 43; Jupiter and Venus were both # 44, the Moon was > #46, Saturn was #47 and Mercury was lowest # 51. The differences are not so > big that we could make any definite conclusions, but what I found really > surprising (the truth is that it was not so surprising for me, I had noted > earlier that Mercury does not necessarily correlate with verbalism) is that > Mercury is clearly the weakest planet of our Average Verbally Skilled > Linguistic. > > I really don't think that Mercury is a verbal planet by essence. I think > it'm more about other kinds of creativity. > > Now, if someone thinks that shadbala tells nothing, it's easy to study if > these 51 verbally skilled linguistics have exalted planets and what they > are. I created a research database where ADB calculates an occasional > control group for the research group, and looked which planets are exalted. > The result was: > > The Moon: 81,8% more often exalted than in the in average charts (six > exalted Moons, averagely should have been 3,3) > Jupiter: 11,1 % more often exalted than in the average charts. > > All the other planets were less than averagely exalted: > Mars - 4,8% > Saturn -26,8% > Venus - 37,5% > Mercury -41,2% > the Sun -78,3% > > Verbally / linguistically gifted people have clearly less exalted Mercurys > than average people. > > I reconstructred the study by looking at planets in their own signs. The > Moon and Jupiter got again highest procents (27,7% and 26,8% respectively) > and the Sun and Mercury got the lowest points (-75,0% and -75,6% > respectively). No matter what I do, I cannot find strong Mercurys in these > people's charts. > > Regards, Sari > Interesting, can it be that verbal abilities relate to the type and strength of the second houses they have instead. Since vedic takes 2nd as the house of speech. Maybe a research along that lines might bring something up. Shadbala is for planetary strengths. Is there a way to numerically assess the strength of a particular house? Cheers Shiva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.