11.15.2004

Don Quixote For President!

I said in my last post that standard schooling can be cruel to people who have their Mercury sign in Leo. This is reflected in Bush’s own admissions that he wasn’t that great of a student, and had I examined his chart before hearing that it would have been no surprise to me. Understanding how the Mercury aspect works and understanding the Leo sign clarifies his educational difficulties, especially when viewed in relation to other aspects of his chart.

First off: the Leo Mercury alone. When it came to schooling, if Bush was not pursuing a self-determined direction (something most schools ultimately allow very little of), relating to what was being taught would be more difficult, even to the point of mental rebellion. “Sit here and learn this stuff” would not have made alot of headway unless it catered to his mind in an egocentric way. Though years away from school, this trait also applies to the on-the-job training of the Presidency.

“I don’t want to learn this. I don’t care about this. I’m going to think about something that interests me.”

Of course, people don’t really think much about what they are going to think of next, or think about how they are thinking (although, those with considerable Mutable and Air influences sometimes do). But the Leo approach sees The Self as the subject that all other things relate to, and therefore “I” and “me” are of paramount importance because that is seen as the constant variable. While it may seem hard to be anything but subjective when it comes to the thoughts in your head, there are people who trend away from subjective self-identity (one example of this could be a person who refers to him- or herself in third person). Also, not everyone self-identifies “I” in their minds very often, because there is no natural need. Yet in all probability Bush often does. This is exacerbated by his Mercury being placed in the First House, the House of self-identity, but I’ll get more into First House influences much later.

On Fixed matters, simplicity and efficiency rule, because those are stabilizing forces. Bush simplifies things in his head, which makes matters easier to deal with cognitively. This does not necessarily make him simple-minded (meaning unintelligent), although it is easy to perceive it in that way…and that perception is enjoyed by about half the nation. But I am defending Leo Mercury here more than Bush; just because there is a way to use his brain effectively does not mean he does…or ever had to.

Fixed also implies the ability to think in terms of units and teams, but the egocentric nature of thinking makes it not “I am just part of this team” but more like “I have strengths that make me a special part of the team.” Leo being Fixed, however, tends to think of others in a team as being important, too, because they also have unique contributions (Leo may be self-oriented, but it also sees reasons for other people to be egocentric as well, because of their individual strengths).

Tying that in with an ability to mentally relate to change and chaos and power (Fire orientation) makes certain team/chaos or team/power affairs simpler for him to work with. One example of this is team sports, which is very energetic and constantly in flux, yet also team-oriented and structured. War is like that, too. But Bush has a history of involvement in sports, including one of his attempts at being a businessman. Also, the constantly changing environment of the White House is something that he probably reacts well to because he has his Cabinet as a team. Again, though, he mentally identifies himself as possessing a unique central power, with everyone else in the team doing the things they do. That is front and center in his mental approach, and leads to his mentality of zero personal blame unless he was specifically responsible (it was someone else in the structure not doing things the right way).

Thinking in terms of change and power leads to thinking about how his power can cause change. He doesn’t consider outside influences as a part of him, but still thinks in terms of affecting those influences personally. He does not need to understand things as they are because if he plans to change them then there’s little point in spending a lot of time figuring it all out. After all, whatever it is, it is about to cease existing in the same way. And if you measured intelligence by the ability to cause change and create chaos, Bush would be considered brilliant. His mind knows that capability very well, for throughout his life he has mentally connected to and learned from exactly that kind of influence, however it appeared in his environment. Then again, once things start to settle, he loses interest.

Now, other planets, and especially his Libran Moon, do influence this to the contrary. His Moon sign in particular creates an emotional connection between himself and other parties. That can return him to needing to pursue a self-determined direction of thought, because his Libran Moon prompts him to work with others, creating a personal reason to mentally pursue something. As an example, he likely got through school with the aid of someone else (probably his mother). By having someone else there providing emotional support and impetus, he became more self-interested about the part he plays, which in turn aids his thinking process.

Bush’s Cancer Sun, on the other hand, would invoke a tendency to wander into daydreaming because it is a more interesting and subjective mental zone. If the subject of his attention was exciting and energetic there would be a better chance of absorption, but if it was too detailed and had little room for interpretation or multiple meanings, he would not relate to it as well. After all, if it is what it is, then why think about it if you can’t change it?

This plays well into the specific degree of Bush’s Leo Mercury (late in Leo’s 9th degree). That degree emphasizes mental meanderings that center on constant personal exploits, not unlike a mental Don Quixote ranging far and wide in pursuit of another conquest. With a Cancer sun, that increases the likelihood that such pursuits would be imaginative and faith-based rather than set within reality.

That he would bear incorrect assumptions about a war with Iraq, and rely upon fanciful reasons for waging that war, is no longer surprising to me.

7 Comments:

Blogger weng said...

wow! it's amazing how an individual can be objectively explained based on astrological parameters. i am a neophyte to these interesting facts but i can't help but wonder, if we have access to someone's chart and at some point be able to deduce or even predict their behavior given underlying circumstances, is there a possibility of a 'behavioral gap' in which that person deviates from his assumed likely response?

be that as it may, have a nice day ahead of you. =D

1:25 AM  
Blogger VW said...

I was wondering if anyone ever did a comparison of the "Briggs-Meyers" versus the Sign information on a person. It seems so similar to me. It doesn't predict what they will do next, but it tells you how they might respond to a situation. I have noticed that Astrology seems to be more accurate to those I know who have information from both.

5:46 PM  
Blogger weng said...

weird, i've been trying to post a comment on your 'gaps' post but i can't seem to access the comment link. =D

5:23 AM  
Blogger VW said...

Same here. It tells me the link is not available.

5:58 PM  
Blogger weng said...

hey!m no new posts yet? =D
have a good day!

9:51 PM  
Blogger weng said...

hey! no new posts yet? =D
have a good day!

9:51 PM  
Blogger VW said...

No post? See`ya!

11:23 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home