moon-significator of mind

1
Hello, everyone :D
I've read about the mercury/moon connection in the natal chart as an important indicator of the quality of the mind;but I don't quite understand how/why the moon has anything to do with the mind?
As far as mercury is concerned, everthing is clear, but the moon...somehow, I'm still confused, although I did some reading of Ptolemy&co.
Is it really only the logic vs. emotions or is there something more to it, something more important-why do we describe someone's mind as "good" if he has Me120/60MO?
Is it only because of the good relationship between the rational/emotional part of his beeing or...?On the other hand,while having ME90/180MO is not particularly auspicious/happy constelation, it is still better than having no aspect at all-especially when the two planets do not even "behold" each other(in my chart, the moon is in aries, mercury in virgo).
I hope I have expressed myself clearly enough :) and I'm very grateful in advance for all the responses that will come from you guys. Thanks a lot for the effort!
Last edited by cor scorpii on Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

2
Contemporary language uses the word "mind" as a synonym for "brain." The mind is much more. It is not only the rational thought processes (usually symbolized by Mercury), but the emotional and imaginative, which are symbolized by the Moon.


Modern physiology and psychology use the terms "left brain" and right brain" to differentiate the rational from the imaginative and emotional. Mercury and the Moon do pretty much the same thing in a chart.

In traditional astrology we tend to seek balance or at least define "balance" as the ideal. So a nice balance of Moon and Mercury gives us a nicely balanced mind.

One way the ideal is expressed is a nice soft aspect between the Moon and Mercury which would give that balance. Having an aspect between the Sun and Moon is also a sign of balance. Having a square only means more work is required for the gifts to surface. An opposition might be a problem, and don't leave out mutual reception.

This is not a cosmic IQ test. Not having any or all of these things is not a sign of stupidity any more than having everything in perfect harmony is a sign of genius. As always it is what the native does with what he's got, and how he uses them. The choleric might take the gifts and charge ahead without regard to consequences. The phlegmatic might not even bother using them.

Tom

Moon as Significator of the mind

4
Hi there,
Just thought I'd add my bit. The Moon is the traditional significator of grammar & I've found it so in charts of writers & poets.
An example is in the Nativity of Jim Morrison of the Doors,where the Moon is in his 3rd house,where it Joys & in a nice trine to Mercury,in the Terms of Venus.
Enjoy what you learn,as it keeps the mind youthful!!

5
Helo Cor Scorpii,

May be not too late to give my response?

Schoener (who followed Aristotle) divided the minds into three; the vegetative mind (Ascendant), irrational mind (Moon) and rational mind (Mercury).

Let us look at the irrational (Moon) and rational (Mercury) minds. Though irrational has the connotation of being negative, this is not so in traditonal astrology. Irrational (Moon) has to do with the thinking process that is not based on deep thinking and logical analysis (Mercury). The moon tells us the way we think when we are asked to give an immediate response. If I asked for your immediate response to the question, "what is your favorite color", it is the moon that gives the answer. If I asked you to think about it (giving you ample time), then Mercury takes over.

Moon is also responsible for the "highway driving" thinking process. It is the activity that you do without having to consciously think each steps. In short, Moon is what we call to when:
1) we are asked for immediate response
2) we perform our repetitive task w/o thinking through the steps.

Moon is faster than Mercury. In Chaldean scheme, Moon is the lowest circle followed by Mercury. This is why we tend to call for moon-thinking first rather than mercury-thinking. This is also why both in modern and traditional astrology, moon governs the instinct (irrational thinking!).

Now, we don't want to rely on our moon-thinking (or Mercury-thinking) all the time. There are many new experience where Mercury-thinking needs to be caled upon. Hence, balance is required. You need to have your Moon and Mercury to be in good aspect for this to happen.

I like the idea of moon (right brain, artistic) and Mercury (left brain, analytical) proposition made by Tom. This can also be used to explain the existence of the two "minds".

6
Here's the best description about the difference between the Moon and Mercury I've encountered lately: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 . It's not astrology, but a brain scientist tells how she got a stroke herself and what happened. She illustrates the difference between the right and left sides of the brain - it's pure Moon and Mercury. Note how many of the lunar significations seems to have moved to Neptune in modern astrology.

7
astrojin,

as always, I really enjoyed reading your post-I'd say it gave me the complete answer. Thank you very much for this great help! :'

Papretis,

thanks for your contribution and the link you've provided. What can I say...this is much more information than I've hoped for-you people are really great! :D

Rulers of ASC, Moon, and Mercury

8
A few things to add to this thread.

First this idea of the Ascendant, Moon, and Mercury as the 'significators of the soul' according to Schoener can be traced back to Abu Mashar (and perhaps earlier but at this point Abu Mashar is the earliest known reference to this kind of thinking).

Second it's not actually the Ascendant, Moon, and Mercury which are judged for the quality of the 'soul' but their rulers. This goes back to the Aristotelian form-matter idea which identifies a planet as the matter, and its ruler the form. Rulers show both the cause and the outcome of a planet's affairs.

What this means practically is that if a person has a decent Mercury, but Mercury's ruler is a malefic or afflicted in some matter, that person's thinking process/manners will become corrupted over time because of the ruler. So if one wants to judge whether somebody will turn out to be a criminal, one has to look at the ruler of Mercury (as well as the Ascendant and Moon).

Bob Hand has a lengthy article on this but I dare not post the link because it appears to come from a third party site who ripped off the article without proper copyright.

Hope this helps clarify some issues.
Dr. H.
World Class Research in Medieval Predictive Astrology
www.regulus-astrology.com

9
What this means practically is that if a person has a decent Mercury, but Mercury's ruler is a malefic or afflicted in some matter, that person's thinking process/manners will become corrupted over time because of the ruler.
Statements like this are dishearteningly common in the traditional astrology crowd. Fortunately, I?m learning to not listen. ? ... that person's thinking process/manners will become corrupted over time...?. Will become. Not may become, is prone to, runs the risk of , etc., but will. In horary ? a weak maybe. Natal ? such pronouncements should never be made. I think this is a bad habit or harmful belief in ones abilities that needs to be watched closely.

Exceptions

10
Kirk,

There are always exceptions to every rule even when the rules are followed as best as possible. Robert Zoller claims 70-80% accuracy in Medieval Predictive Astrology, a figure which can be higher if the astrologer is gifted and applies appropriate intuition.

What I have found consistently for all charts I have read so far is that the ruler of a planet shows the source and the outcome of a planet's effects. If the ruler is afflicted, the planet it rules will become afflicted over time.

Within this rule there are some exceptions. For instance, a malefic ruler may be accidentally dignified so its effects may not be that harmful. Second, it takes time for rulers to kick in. I use 'time' here rather loosely, often it takes until middle age, e.g., 40/45 and older, before the impact of rulers is clearly seen.

Hope this clarification is helpful.
Dr. H.
World Class Research in Medieval Predictive Astrology
www.regulus-astrology.com

Re: Exceptions

11
Within this rule there are some exceptions. For instance, a malefic ruler may be accidentally dignified so its effects may not be that harmful. Second, it takes time for rulers to kick in. I use 'time' here rather loosely, often it takes until middle age, e.g., 40/45 and older, before the impact of rulers is clearly seen.

Ok, but now there's something in your post that confuses me a bit...

I've learned so far that an accidentally dignified malefic as a ruler would be able to express its malice and negativity openly and powerfully-how can this accidental dignity bring about the positive effects of an otherwise essentially debilitated planet?
Please correct me if I'm getting something wrong here...
Greetings :)

12
Dr. H,

Thank you. That was interesting and does help in working with a planet and its ruler. But it wasn?t what I was preaching about. :) My point was about speaking with absolute certainty that something will happen ? especially harmful in natal astrology.


You wrote:
Robert Zoller claims 70-80% accuracy in Medieval Predictive Astrology, a figure which can be higher if the astrologer is gifted and applies appropriate intuition.
Even if an astrologer can achieve 85-90% accuracy it?s still not 100%. Therefore, that top-notch astrologer would have no right to say ?...that person's thinking process/manners will [my emphasis] become corrupted over time because of the ruler.?

What I have found consistently for all charts I have read so far is that the ruler of a planet shows the source and the outcome of a planet's effects. If the ruler is afflicted, the planet it rules will become afflicted over time.
You seem to be saying here that since the planet will become afflicted over time, something about the chart native will become afflicted/corrupted/worsened, etc., as in the statement about Mercury and the mind becoming corrupted. An astrologer limited to 70-90% accuracy is limited to saying ?is likely? or ?there?s a high chance?. In an actual reading you may not make such absolute statements to the person, but even in discussions such as this thread I think it?s important to write carefully. We tend to follow our respected authorities and not all of us have well-developed critical abilities.