Johannes, I am not at all offended! I am delighted you are participating in this discussion. What did I say that made you feel I was offended?

I am a very direct type of person when offended, and I would have pm'd you and said something off thread. Don't worry about it.

Well, I thought I was getting it until dastars agreed with Johannes about Jupiter

Anyway, here is a chart I just asked. I will interpret it and you guys have at it.
This is the question: Will the judge appoint counsel? I am suing the county I live in in Upstate New York, because I feel they have violated my civil rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The County responded to my inital complaint today. I am in very ill health and have multiple disabilites. On Monday I am going to file a request for the federal judge to appoint a lawyer to represent me as I am too ill to represent myself. I got a very negative result.
I am Jupiter in the 6th house, a weak house. Both the County (7th ) and the Judge are Mercury in it's own sign, separating from a conjunction with Venus. I say they are both Mercury because I am using the 10th house as the judge. There are no aspects and no reception, so it looks like I'm screwed. Say what's wrong with my analysis, if you all will be so kind. Thanks

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

johannes susato wrote:If Jupiter is to exalt the Moon, he can do this only, if he is in the Exaltation of the Moon, in Taurus.

That's exactly what JF says, Lakewind. Minus the concepts of receiving and received, which I removed from the quote, but I could tell that for Johannes this was clear.

I agree this chart does not look positive. You mentioned there's no reception. Indeed there's no helpful reception, but there's plenty of negative reception. Three angular planets in Gemini and the Moon's dispositor who happens to be the Moon's next aspect, Mars, is in Virgo. They are all in Jupiter's detriment so they will not be inclined to help Jupiter, unfortunately.

OK, lakewind

Lakewind wrote: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.

All authors agree that rulership by domicile is the strongest foundation for reception.

Receiving another planet is not sharing the rulership of the receiving planet with the received one. The reiceived planet does not participate in the rulership of the receiving planet.
There is a descending scale of strength reaching from the dignity of domicile as strongest via exaltation as second strongest to the face as the faintest of the receiving planet's dignities.

Or what do you mean by "shared rulership" exactly?

Johannes

dastars wrote: [Fri 12, 11:09 pm]

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.

Dastars, your consideration is not considering Frawley, Textbook, p. 76:

"Mutual Reception[...] This reciprocity does not need to be by the same dignity or debility [...]; it can be by any combination of dignities or debilities. Mars in the sign of Venus: he loves her. [...] Venus in the detriment of Mars: his love is less than unrequited - she actively hates him."

Really: '-- just like real life' is sometimes working in reality.

Johannes

Lakewind wrote:[Sat Jun 02, 1:43 am]

Anyway, here is a chart I just asked. I will interpret it and you guys have at it.
This is the question: Will the judge appoint counsel? I am suing the county I live in in Upstate New York, because I feel they have violated my civil rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The County responded to my inital complaint today. I am in very ill health and have multiple disabilites. On Monday I am going to file a request for the federal judge to appoint a lawyer to represent me as I am too ill to represent myself. I got a very negative result.

You really don't look very well in this question, Lakewind, I agree and regret. Jupiter peregrine in the sixt and the Moon in its fall in the house of your hopes and wishes, seeking the sextile with Mars, Lord of the 12th. But Mars is receiving the Moon in his domicile, triplicity and face at least.

But what the chart affirms is the background of your question: I understand your very ill health to be the condition for getting legal help at all.
Your question:
The lawyer is represented by Saturn, Lord of the second, in his exaltation and triplicity, and Mercury, the judge, in his own house/sign, the significators receiving each other in both their terms (mutual reception) being in good houses (7th and 11th). Mercury will perfect his trine to Saturn on the fourth day of June, Monday, and in my opinion the day which brings about the judicial decison to appoint a lawyer to represent you.

Johannes

Thanks, guys. I am reconciled to having to rebut the motion by myself. I was a practicing attorney for several years before my disabilities worsened, so I just have to get back into that mode of thinking and do my best. At least, I am spotting a few things in these charts. Bye for now.

johannes susato wrote:Dastars, your consideration is not considering Frawley, Textbook, p. 76:"Mutual Reception[...] This reciprocity does not need to be by the same dignity or debility [...]; it can be by any combination of dignities or debilities.

Thanks for pointing that out, Johannes. Indeed, the definition is different. I stand corrected.

johannes susato wrote:Really: '-- just like real life' is sometimes working in reality.

What do you mean by this last comment?

dastars wrote:

johannes susato wrote:Really: '-- just like real life' is sometimes working in reality.

What do you mean by this last comment?

I repeated your statement "just like real life" to affim it, but I wanted to say at the same time, that reality sometimes is working more complicated, more contradictorily than that your former view on reception, you thinking this was Frawley's, could come up to. Frawley's definition of reception is far more in accordance with reality, than you thought it was.

Johannes

You mean Frawley's definition of "mutual reception", not of "reception". His definition of reception I already quoted earlier above, I'm sure you must have seen that it is as it is written on the book.

My error was theoretical since "mutual reception is simply a description of reception from both sides without any further special meaning.

There's no "my former view" of reception. In practice my view of reception or mutual reception has not changed a bit.

If Frawley uses the term for mixed receptions or not (as I had thought) that does not change my practice or my understanding.

Of course you are right: I meant mutual reception.

I think it is clear enough that "your view on (mutual) reception" is of theoretical nature. And so I did not speak of your practice at all because that was not subject of my explanation which you had asked for. When you had written earlier "Frawley uses the term 'mutual reception' only if the dignities are major and similar", then your view on [or definition of] (mutual) reception had not been that of Frawley. A fact that had been cleared already I thought. But my point was that "Frawley's definition of (mutual) reception is far more in accordance with reality, than you thought it was." And what indeed is hard to believe and to accept from a traditional point of view as to reception and its definition taken as a whole.

I wonder how you could establish a connection between my explanation or my words and your practice which - again - was not in the focus at all.

Johannes

johannes susato wrote:And what indeed is hard to believe and to accept from a traditional point of view as to reception and its definition taken as a whole.

I don't know what you mean. What is hard to believe and to accept from a traditional point of view? Can you clarify?

johannes susato wrote:I wonder how you could establish a connection between my explanation or my words and your practice

Which of your explanations or words? Can you be specific?