skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Differences about reception
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
dastars



Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 53

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Paul,

Perhaps this is just a question of terminology. I'm using the word receptions, and in some cases disposition, but let's try to abandon the term and just look at what happens in practice for a moment.

A planet in any sign will either be inclined to help, or not help or be neutral to other planets. In the two extremes of the scale a planet in a particular sign will want to help that sign ruler, it will not want to help the planet who detriments in that sign and will be neutral to a planet who is peregrine in that sign (following JF).

When the notion of power of one planet over another becomes relevant in the context of the chart I call it disposition. A planet's dispositor has power over that planet. Disposition too can have degrees: by sign, exaltation, triplicity, etc.

Whether we call it receptions or disposition the inner workings of the relationship between the planets is the same. The difference is purely notional.

No matter how we call the relationship between the planets, we can look at that relationship with or without aspects depending on the context and the question. The way the relationship works is exactly the same in both situations.

If there is an aspect involved that relationship will help determine the outcome of the event we are expecting to see which is shown by that aspect.

But some charts are not about events. In some cases the relationships described above have nothing to do with an aspect. The classical example is a relationship chart where we can have several significators for the partners. How do we tell how they feel about one another? By looking at which signs L1, L7, the Moon, Venus and the Sun are in and determining the receptions. That way we get a snapshot of their feelings for one another. We are not talking about an event so an aspect is not needed. If there is an aspect in the chart we obviously look at what it tells us, but usually there's much more in the charts that is shown by the receptions among the other significators besides only the two who are in aspect. That gives us the complete picture.

If we think it terms of receptions with aspects our answer to a question such as "does he love me?" will certainly be limited, because very likely we will not have five significators in aspect in a chart.

Some other examples of charts which CAN BE answered based only on "receptions/disposition" without an aspect:

Will the the treatment help me?
Will Roger Federer win the match?
Should I trust his offer?
Is she cheating on me?
And most medical horaries.

Does that make sense? If not, can you exemplify how you answer such a question as "does he love me?" My impression is that it is the same way that I do but perhaps you do not call it receptions, I don't know.

I will post my interpretation to my chart so you can see what I mean in practice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dastars



Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 53

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is my interpretation of the chart I posted above in order to illustrate what I (and John Frawley) mean by receptions.

I'm not going to make comments about dignities or placement, and will focus only on receptions. If somebody is interested in reading the full delineation contact me privately and I will send you a link to my web site where the chart is posted. There's more in this chart than what I am writing here.

The querent has been looking for a steady long term relationship for a long time and she's wondering if this is IT.

THE SIGNIFICATORS
The querent is a woman so she gets Jupiter, the Moon and Venus. Her partner is a man so he gets Mercury and the Sun.

This is a brand new relationship so it is not surprising to see positive reception all over including exaltation from both sites. I'm sure you've fallen in love so you know what is meant by "exalting" the other person.

Jupiter signifies her as a person or thinking being. What does Jupiter want and value most? Jupiter is in Taurus so she really values her emotions, she exalts the Moon, she also values whatever Venus signifies. Venus rules Jupiter so Venus dictates the rules for her personality, Venus is the boss. Venus represents her as a woman, that is, her body and the whole of her female psychology.

Venus exalts Jupiter. For her being a woman makes her feel good as a person. Venus is ruled by the Moon ; as a woman her emotions are of paramount importance -- she loves falling in love.

The Moon exalts the Sun So she asks the astrologer: is he "HIM", the guy I have been looking for? Is this THE long term relationship I've wanted?

The Moon will square the Sun and immediately after will go into its own exaltation in Taurus, in mutual reception (sign-exaltation) with Venus. She will get more deeply involved with him and will fall deeper in love. It won't be without difficulties though, we have a square here.

The Sun in Cancer, him as a man, his body and his male psychology, love her personality and her emotionality: the Sun is in the sign of the Moon and exalts Jupiter. Mercury is ruled by this Sun so is going along with whatever the Sun tells him.

WILL IT LAST?
Some things will last, some will not.

Venus and the Sun are in a cardinal sign so whatever they are feeling will not last. The Sun will fall out of love as soon as it enters Leo. Venus's "high on herself" (Jupiter and the Moon) will pass too. So far it's normal, many relationships begin like this, and certain feelings fade.

So, what will last?

Mercury's interest in and subserviency to the Sun will remain intact. Jupiter is in fixed Taurus; no matter what happens she will continue putting her own emotions on a pedestal and will continue being ruled by her female psychology. Her personality revolves around those values, that will not change. The Moon entering Taurus will become exalted herself which brings a measure of emotional wisdom to the picture as she stops exalting the Sun, but that makes her more self-involved or self-absorbed as the Moon becomes ruled by Venus.

The change of receptions due to the change of signs is what tells us of the future. When the Sun leaves Cancer it falls out of love with Jupiter and the Moon since the current receptions, therefore the SUn's feeling towards Jupiter and the Moon will be no more. He loses interest in her. He will be in no dignity whatsoever of any of her significators.

Likewise there's no feeling in her for him that will endure. Once the Moon changes signs she will also be in no dignity of any of his significators. And that is happening in a fixed sign.

Does that look like the recipe for the long term relationship that she was look for? Not at all. This is all about exalting the Sun, having some fun while it happens and that's all folks. Notice that Jupiter is in house 5 of fun and the Moon will soon come in too.

THE OUTCOME
So, no, there's no future in the long run. And so it proved; the outcome was as predicted: it lasted about four months. Also very accurate was the chart display of the psychological traits and states of both partners. I know both of them personally. (I really recommend doing chart for people you know and who you can get the outcome from; you can learn things the books will never tell you that way.)

Finally, Mars is the dispositor of the Arabian part of marriage therefore it signifies their relationship. We would apply the same notions of receptions and arrive at some meaningful conclusions too. This chart could easily be answered by looking at Mars alone since it shows the state of their relationship and where it is going.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lakewind



Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Posts: 103
Location: Buffalo area, New York State

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wait for me, why didn't you? I would have only mentioned the changes in the sun and the moon, but I still would have said it, if you had waited Tongue Out

I have learned that a square between sun and moon is pretty much a "no" answer, anyway.

The truth is, I found this very helpful, and will refer to this again, I am sure. Thanks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
dastars



Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 53

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry Lakewind! I believe you! If you got the Sun and Moon change of receptions you got 90% of the judgement.

Lakewind wrote:
I have learned that a square between sun and moon is pretty much a "no" answer, anyway


Just be careful with generalizations and "rules" found in books. Every testimony always depends on the question and on the chart.

In this chart everything points at a negative answer. But you may well find a chart where other testimonies overrule such a square and give you a positive answer.

A square simply shows difficulties and/or delays it does not mean an automatic "no". Many relationships begin with difficulties but last long nevertheless. You have to consider all of the receptions among all significators.

That's exactly one of the points we are discussing here. When there is an aspect you must look at the receptions because if the receptions are good the answer may well be a "yes", just like a trine or conjunction with bad receptions can give a "no".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lakewind



Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Posts: 103
Location: Buffalo area, New York State

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 4:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What about reception by sign in your view of reception? Say, two significators sharing a common ruler. How do you rate this?
How do you describe it's nature?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
dastars



Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 53

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In principle it would mean that both significators would be interested in their dispositor or be under its power. But it really depends on the situation. It might mean something or it might be irrelevant.

Once I did a chart for the question: will he call me?

She was the Moon applying to conjunct Saturn in Libra in the 12th house.

He never called. No reception from him towards her. There was no interest for him to call her. Her exalting him was irrelevant. That they were both ruled by Venus was also irrelevant.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1544

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Dastars

Thank you for posting your delineation. I respect that you have your own way of doing things though for me the reading was a bit confusing to follow. Especially as, from my point of view, you appear to use disposition and reception almost interchangeably. You say to abandon the terms reception and disposition early on in the post but then continued using them interchangeably from what I can see so it's difficult to follow when I come to the table already loaded with assumptions about what reception and disposition mean.

For example:
Quote:
In the two extremes of the scale a planet in a particular sign will want to help that sign ruler, it will not want to help the planet who detriments in that sign and will be neutral to a planet who is peregrine in that sign (following JF).

When the notion of power of one planet over another becomes relevant in the context of the chart I call it disposition. A planet's dispositor has power over that planet. Disposition too can have degrees: by sign, exaltation, triplicity, etc.

Whether we call it receptions or disposition the inner workings of the relationship between the planets is the same. The difference is purely notional.


If I'm following what you're saying here, you're saying that a planet will want to aid and help its dispositor and that the dispositor has power over the planet. The last paragraph seems to indicate that you're content to call this either reception or disposition?

I'm confused because I'm still not 100% sure what you mean by reception. Do you mean that reception and disposition are the same thing? Or do you mean that reception is the attitude that a given planet has, due to its dispositor?

I think a clear definition of what you think reception is would be helpful.

If I follow your example, you seem to be saying that the thing that indicates the lack of a relationship is the moving of the planets out of the signs of the other's dignity - the mutual reception of the Sun and Moon which we see at the time of the question is lost. However, this is mutual reception - so it doesn't inform us anything whatsoever about the ways that Frawley does reception unfortunately.


Personally I would have thought the more obvious thing in this chart is that Jupiter and Mercury do not aspect, the Sun and Venus do not aspect, and the Moon does not apply to either the Sun or Mercury but instead separates from Mercury. The Moon's next aspect is a square with the Sun which indicates some form of relationship, more likely passion or a more sexually involved relationship.

So I would have said there would be a possibility for a relationship but perhaps no real longevity.


But your example seems to imply that receptions/dispositions alone inform us about romance.
What if two planets were in aspect by trine but were not in the dignities of one another? Would this mean a no?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dastars



Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 53

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Paul,

Paul wrote:
If I'm following what you're saying here, you're saying that a planet will want to aid and help its dispositor and that the dispositor has power over the planet. The last paragraph seems to indicate that you're content to call this either reception or disposition?


Indeed, I don't mind calling either because they are the expression of the same mechanism or relationship. But for the sake of coherent thinking: in reception the notion of help, or love, or favoring is meaningful; in disposition the notion of power or control is meaningful. But in essence they are the workings of one and the same mechanism. They are just cloaked by a different concept or notion. As far as I can tell any difference is notional only -- bearing in mind that, in this approach, receptions/disposition can exist without aspects.

Paul wrote:
I think a clear definition of what you think reception is would be helpful.


Here's one from John Frawley:

Dignity shows power to act
Reception shows inclination to act
Aspect shows occasion to act.

We can also say that reception shows the motive to act.

But in this chart it just shows plain love and the absence of love. It also shows a good deal of dislike (or "hate" -- I don't like that word) towards Mars since 3, and soon 4, significators are in Mars' debilities.

Paul wrote:
If I follow your example, you seem to be saying that the thing that indicates the lack of a relationship is the moving of the planets out of the signs of the other's dignity - the mutual reception of the Sun and Moon which we see at the time of the question is lost. However, this is mutual reception - so it doesn't inform us anything whatsoever about the ways that Frawley does reception unfortunately.


I would not say lack of relationship. They already are in a relationship. But indeed, lack of relationship in the future, or the end of the relationship. All we need to determine is whether it will or will not last long. By looking at the "receptions" we determine that they will not be interested in one another (or love one another) in the near future therefore the relationship will not last.

As for the Sun-Moon mutual reception all it means in this chart, in practical terms, is that there is a desire to be together from both parties, nothing more, nothing less. There's nothing special about it. Once the desire is gone by one or both parties the relationship must change -- end in this case because the motive is gone from both sides.

Paul wrote:
Personally I would have thought the more obvious thing in this chart is that Jupiter and Mercury do not aspect, the Sun and Venus do not aspect, and the Moon does not apply to either the Sun or Mercury but instead separates from Mercury. The Moon's next aspect is a square with the Sun which indicates some form of relationship, more likely passion or a more sexually involved relationship.


That sounds fine to me. It's your approach to the chart.

Paul wrote:
But your example seems to imply that receptions/dispositions alone inform us about romance.


In this approach receptions alone inform us about how they feel about one another. In this approach aspects show influence by proximity or events in the case of perfected aspects.

Paul wrote:
What if two planets were in aspect by trine but were not in the dignities of one another? Would this mean a no?


I can't tell without a context. It depends on the question and on what the chart shows. I am unable to give a general rule.

I'm sorry about the confusion, Paul. I covered the gist of the idea and gave an example to the best of my ability. I don't think I improve on my expression of my understanding. So if you or anybody else want to understand this approach further pick up John Frawley's "The Horary Textbook". He explains everything in detail.

Thanks for the discussion, Paul and Lakewind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1544

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Dastars

Thank you for your responses.

I have Frawley's Horary Astrology book but I've not read it in a while and I didn't remember him using disposition and reception so interchangeably.

I guess its this point that confuses me. I still need a good description of what reception is. You say things like "Jupiter exalts the Moon", but this doesn't tell us if Jupiter receives the Moon or if the Moon receives Jupiter. I'd have said Jupiter is in the exaltation of the Moon and therefore the Moon will receive Jupiter's light, as the light is laden with the qualities of Moon's exaltation.

I think a clear description would be better.

For example I'll give you my understanding:
Reception occurs when two planets are in aspect, and one planet is in the dignity of the other, that other planet will receive the planet who is in its dignity.
e.g. Moon applying to Jupiter in Taurus - Moon will receive Jupiter.

My understanding of your use of reception is:
A planet receives another who is in the dignities of the first planet's dispositor?
e.g Jupiter is in Taurus, no matter where Moon is, Jupiter will receive Moon?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:


[...] I still need a good description of what reception is. You say things like "Jupiter exalts the Moon", but this doesn't tell us if Jupiter receives the Moon or if the Moon receives Jupiter. I'd have said Jupiter is in the exaltation of the Moon and therefore the Moon will receive Jupiter's light, as the light is laden with the qualities of Moon's exaltation.

I think a clear description would be better.

For example I'll give you my understanding:
Reception occurs when two planets are in aspect, and one planet is in the dignity of the other, that other planet will receive the planet who is in its dignity.
e.g. Moon applying to Jupiter in Taurus - Moon will receive Jupiter.

My understanding of your use of reception is:
A planet receives another who is in the dignities of the first planet's dispositor?
e.g Jupiter is in Taurus, no matter where Moon is, Jupiter will receive Moon?


The only sentence that equals (in his context) a definition of Frawley's opinion as to Reception and that I can find, is this (The Horary Textbook, p. 71):
"When assessing receptions, we must consider all the dignities and debilities it [a planet] is in."

Reading this sentence in its context and by the examples given by Frawley we can state:

If planet A is in one (or more) dignities of Planet B, Planet A will be received by Planet B = Reception.

If planet A is in one (or more) debilities of Planet B, Planet A will be received by Planet B = negative Reception.

Reception is completely independent of the position of the receiving planet.

"[...] it is vital that we know how to find motive, attitude and values in the chart. This knowledge is found by the study of reception." (Textbook, p. 71)
This is the opinion of Frawley. He is the 'one and only' who knows 'negative' Receptions. And when he says:
"Negative receptions (by detriment or fall) are commonly ignored. Don't. They are extremly important." (p. 76)
- then he ignores, that all other authors define receptions as the position of a planet in the dignities - and in the dignities only - of another planet. Let this be with aspects, as the inventors of reception, the arabs, claimed, or without as it was developed by Lilly and others, Morin for example.

Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dastars



Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 53

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:
My understanding of your use of reception is:
A planet receives another who is in the dignities of the first planet's dispositor?
e.g Jupiter is in Taurus, no matter where Moon is, Jupiter will receive Moon?


Yes, that is correct. But I don't even need to think of receiving and received because that confuses me. That is a different way of thinking which I think becomes incompatible with Frawley's. It is better not to mix them. I doubt you will be able to understand Frawley while using those terms and concepts. The are not needed -- in this approach.

Think of "attitude" or "feeling". If I am Jupiter in Taurus I exalt the Moon, I think she is wonderful and I want to be near her, I want the best for her, I want her. It does not matter whether she is at home, in the supermarket or in a soccer match, I still exalt her. So no, it does not matter where the Moon is AS FAR AS JUPITER'S FEELINGS ARE CONCERNED.

Of course now we look at where the Moon is do determine how SHE feels about Jupiter. If the Moon is in CAP we know that the feelings are not reciprocal as she dislikes Jupiter by being there. So, as a rough example, if we have an aspect between them it will likely not work because the Moon does not want Jupiter any hear her.

If the Moon is at 20 Aries in a daytime chart, for example, she is in no dignity of Jupiter so she is indifferent to him. This changes nothing how Jupiter feels about her.

And so on...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lakewind



Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Posts: 103
Location: Buffalo area, New York State

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You guys are reaching the heart of my confusion about reception. I feel intuitively that Dastars is correct about Jupiter and the moon. I know Johannes, that you will pooh pooh the intuition part because you so rely on scholarly back up. However, it feel so utterly plain that if the word exaltation is used, it has to mean that the planet doing the exalting is strongly receptive to the planet being exalted........

I still don't get the contrdiction inherent between exaltation and shared rulership, though. It seems rulership by domicile shoulsd also be quite strong in defining reception. Anyway, this is a good discussion and I thank you all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:

[1.][...] I still need a good description of what reception is. You say things like "Jupiter exalts the Moon", but this doesn't tell us if Jupiter receives the Moon or if the Moon receives Jupiter. I'd have said Jupiter is in the exaltation of the Moon and therefore the Moon will receive Jupiter's light, as the light is laden with the qualities of Moon's exaltation.

[2.] I think a clear description would be better.

[3.] For example I'll give you my understanding:
Reception occurs when two planets are in aspect, and one planet is in the dignity of the other, that other planet will receive the planet who is in its dignity.

[4.]e.g. Moon applying to Jupiter in Taurus - Moon will receive Jupiter.

[5.]e.g. Jupiter is in Taurus, no matter where Moon is, Jupiter will receive Moon?


Hi Paul,

I hope that my point in our earlier discussion in this thread becomes clearer now: there are different definitions of reception given by different authors and we can chose which to follow. But we should never forget the other definitions and opinions as given and they perhaps even better working than just "ours" - or not.

After the 'abstract' above now your concrete examples again:

to 1. If Jupiter is to exalt the Moon, he can do this only, if he is in the Exaltation of the Moon, in Taurus. This is a dignity of the Moon, thus the Moon receives Jupiter, in other words: Jupiter is received by the Moon. If you follow Frawley and many others, this is reception. Jupiter himself is received as a whole, not only his light. It is his position in a dignity of the Moon, that makes him to be received by the Moon.

to 2. I hope my my text above is abstract and clear enough? Confused

to 3. This is a definition of the Arabs and of course of many other authors. But as you can see with Lilly, Morin, Frawley and others, many authors do not claim an aspect at all.

to 4. This is a reception, but I don't know, whether the Arabs would claim

to 5. Its just contrariwise: No matter where the Moon is, she will receive Juptier. If the Moon were in a dignity of Jupiter (his signs, exaltation, triplicity, term or face) then he himself would receive the Moon. Most of the authors would accept a mutual reception, even without aspects.
And if, Jupiter being in Taurus, the Moon were in a debility of Jupiter, Frawley, but only him, would accept a mutual reception (by one negative reception) as far as I understand him (p. 76).

Johannes


Last edited by johannes susato on Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Lakewind,
did I offend you, or do you think, someone else here?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dastars



Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 53

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Johannes,

What you say seems pretty clear to me.

Two points of consideration:

1.
Frawley uses the term "mutual reception" only if the dignities are major and similar: the planets involved are in each other signs, or exaltation; or sometimes if one is in the other's exaltation and the other is in the first's sign. He also uses the same term when the planets involved are in each other's debilities such as : negative mutual reception.

In practice that simply means what both planets relate to one another in a similar fashion, either negatively or positively -- just like real life. There's no other special meaning to mutual reception in practice -- in this approach.

2.
Negative reception is the obvious and logical counterpart of positive reception. If being in a planet's sign indicates the inclination to help that sign ruler, it is logical that that same planet will not be inclined to help the planet who detriments in that same sign. That's how it works in this approach. I cannot imagine how we would be able to determine negative attitude if we ignore negative receptions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated