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.