|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Deb
Administrator
Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3019
Location: England
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 3:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Hi Chrissy
| Quote: | | let's take this example: if the sun is in taurus and the moon is in aries (for a day chart) there would be mixed reception in that the sun is in the moon's exaltation and the moon is in the day triplicity of the sun. i THINK most people would say the sun receives the moon by exaltation (and therefore gets all the nice little benefits of the exaltation) and the moon receives the sun by triplicity (and therefore reaps the benefits of the triplicity). right? |
That’s not a very good example because there’s mutual reception by exaltation between the Sun and Moon there. But I think you have described this is correctly.
I couldn’t quite understand your second example I’m afraid, or why you are allowing Saturn to receive the Moon twice. Saturn is giving the Moon a reception because he receives her into his exaltation (that he also receives her into his triplicity and terms makes the reception especially strong). So if the Moon is applying to Saturn by aspect he will be attentive to her and he’s not likely to harm her (even though he’s Saturn and might otherwise be malefic).
With these positions the Moon is also receiving Saturn into her sign and face, so there is a strong mutual reception, showing they are both receptive and welcoming to each other. And that means that although they are moving towards a square aspect, any hostility that the square might have implied will be diminished. They will both be receptive to the contact and give what they can to help each other.
The Libra updates will include a detailed article on Lilly’s use of reception so hopefully that will clarify your remaining doubts. In fact the article is already in place, waiting for me to make the links to it, so if you want to take an early view you’ll find it at : http://www.skyscript.co.uk/reception.html
It's good that this makes sense to you. I think when something 'clicks' it generally feels right.
Deb |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sigma4
Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 116
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Deb,
As I have just finished reading your article about receptions, I want to say "Aha! Great!".It is a brilliant and illuminating article.Thanks 
I believe it is a "must read" article for all levels of horary students. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sue
Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree. I was certainly taught many years ago that mutual reception meant reception at the same level of dignities and mixed reception was differing levels of dignity. But it seems clear from reading traditional texts that what is meant by mutual reception is simply that both planets are involved in reception. I guess it's a bit like mutual attraction where both people are involved in an attraction to each other but one may be more attracted than the other.
I also didn't have a clear enough understanding that reception doesn't have to be mutual. I had my copy of CA with me when I read this article and it does clarify some of Lilly's explanations a lot more. It's amazing how clear some things become when someone points them out to you.
Great article and very useful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sigma4
Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 116
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wouldn't it be amazing also if somebody 're-writes' the Christian Astrology in modern English with added explanations like in Deb's article (maybe Deb herself or Deb et al) and maybe also enriched with some similar up-to-date examples?
I'm serious.That would be a GREAT work and a lasting contribution to the devoted students of the art of horary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sue
Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Deb did a version CA a few years back. I don't know how readily available it is at the moment but it is the one I use and the best as far as I am concerned. I'm not so sure it is a good idea to 'modernise' it too much as it may detract from the sense of tradition about it. I do know what you mean though. I have thought of something similar. Perhaps a book something along the lines of 'A Modern Guide to Lilly,' with easy to understand explanations and modern examples of charts. I know many authors have claimed in their books that their guide is Lilly but I haven't really seen a book that sticks purely to Lilly's principles as set out in CA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnnieGoLightly
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Posts: 52
Location: Adelaide, SA
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:27 am Post subject: Receptions - reviewing Frawley's approach |
|
|
I accept that ultimately the point of the thread is to nut out the understanding of ‘reception’. But as a subtext to that I’ve been nutting out my understanding of Frawley’s approach in light of the apparent differing approach discuss in this thread, and I’ve come to the following conclusion: 
It’s all about the usage of language … something which is often a confusing thing.
Now to be clear, I consider myself a newbie to reception and have learnt my horary and use of reception via Frawley’s books. I think what is missing from the discussion of the Frawley approach, is that Frawley does use reception as discussed by Deb, he just doesn’t use the word ‘Reception’. Also most of us are so busy running around looking at what plant loves what, that we forget to stop and use this important step, that Frawley does actually use … Reception … ok, can’t quote it from the book as don’t have it to hand, but remember it clearly from his lecture and workshop.
So back to the example taken from Lilly – with the main signifiers being Jupiter in Taurus and Mercury in Cancer.
If I approach this from the ‘Frawley’ method of a love horary, the yes, I would read it as Jupiter LOVES Venus and Mercury LOVES the Moon.
… this first stage only indicates the ‘who’s interested in whom’ bit … it doesn’t, as has been pointed out, give any consideration to the respect or lack thereof that the parties may or may not have for each other. So is Frawley being to simplistic? I think not. Why? Because I also clearly recall him also taking the examination further and pointing out that one must also consider the level of respect between the two parties – my words – I believe he said something along the lines of “what they actually ‘think’ of each other as distinct from the emotional query at hand” … So what does one party think of the other parties intellect and emotional self … etc etc
Anyway, whilst the word ‘reception’ was never used, having read the thread, I can see this is what he meant. So as a second stage to this the reception is also to be considered. Jupiter ‘receives’ Mercury in exaltation … so whilst Jupiter (quesited) LOVES Venus, he also thinks highly of Mercury (he likes/respects the way she thinks), perhaps beyond what would be realistic (exaltation), Mercury (querent) however, does not receive Jupiter (quesited), so has no opinion as to whether or not she likes the way he thinks.
So the upshot by applying Frawley, the student is only doing half the job if they are only considering which planet loves which, as Frawley clearly takes it further and also uses receptions.
So, step one - the Querent is running on self interest (Mercury disposited by Moon), Step two - Reception … is she receptive of him ? No – why? Mercury doesn’t receive Jupiter.
Looking to the Quesited … Step One - his main ‘love’ focus is the querent as a woman and emotional being – Jupiter disposed by Venus and in the sign of exaltation of the Moon. Step Two - Does he receive her? Yes! He holds her in exaggerated esteem – Jupiter receives Mercury by exaltation.
Broken down to real simple terms.
Mercury LOVES the Moon (herself). Does Mercury like the way Jupiter thinks (quesited as rational being) – Reception – She holds no opinion because Mercury doesn’t receive Jupiter.
Jupiter LOVES Venus and EXALTS the Moon – He can’t believe his luck! Does Jupiter like Mercury as a rational being? – Reception – Yes, but again the exaggeration of exaltation, because Jupiter receives Mercury into Exaltation.
Bottom line … He’s open to her, she’s not open to him.
I also recall Frawley doing various examples where he looked at the fact that whilst one party was ‘in love’ with the other, they hated the way they thought, or hated the way they expressed themselves emotionally.
Anyway, I feel I have digressed into a defence of Frawley … which I guess in part it was, but also in part to nut out what I had learnt from Frawley’s books in the context of the seemingly ‘alternate’ discussion on reception.
Hope I’ve made some sense. As it’s all a bit rushed. 
Ann
_________________
Ann |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sue
Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think the two approaches are quite different. I've read John's books and been to his talks too and his use of reception is not the way I have been taught. I don't have the books at hand either. But to use your example of Jupiter in Taurus and Mercury in Cancer, the way I remember it, John would say that because Mercury is in the exaltation of Jupiter then Mercury puts Jupiter up on a pedestal. This seems to be the opposite from what you have said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sigma4
Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 116
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I do know what you mean though. I have thought of something similar. Perhaps a book something along the lines of 'A Modern Guide to Lilly,' with easy to understand explanations and modern examples of charts. |
Sue,
This is exactly what I tried to mean.By 'modern' I meant today's English not the so-called moderns' approach to astrology.
I look forward to having one day the book |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deb
Administrator
Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3019
Location: England
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the feedback on the article. It’s always great to know someone is interested in what you write.
With regards the edition of CA I produced way back, I no longer have anything to do with Ascella which is the distributor. From what I understand supplies are virtually non-existent. A real shame because a lot of work went into annotating it, not just from myself but from a lot of other experts who got involved; and Lilly’s work is so much easier to follow when you can also see the charts in modern format I think. For more information contact me by email. I tend not to draw attention to it, since people would only struggle to get hold of it anyway.
Annie you may be right that it is all about the language, and language can be a confusing thing. It’s the little things that make the difference. In his chapter on reception JF writes:
| Quote: | | The texts use confusing language for receptions, with talk of planets ‘receiving’ each other, or ‘rendering virtue’ from one to another. Far simpler to state simply ‘Venus is in the sign of Jupiter’, or ‘Mars exalts Saturn’. |
Is it simpler to state it like that? (surely not – how hard is it to say a planet is receiving another ?). Whether it is simpler or not, it doesn’t convey a true sense of the concept involved. It implies that the planet being received is in a weakened position in the ‘power play’ between the planets, rather than it being seen as acknowledged and attended to.
What does ‘Mars exalts Saturn’ mean? That Mars is being received into the exaltation of Saturn? Or that it is receiving Saturn into his? In the context of John’s work we can see what he means, but use that phrase to anyone with a wider understanding of reception and it would be very confusing.
John suggests that a planet “exalts the planet in whose exaltation it falls”. Students take from this the notion “ah, she/he is exalting the other – obviously infatuated”. In relationships infatuation implies emotional vulnerability and that implies weakness. So being received by exaltation, which traditionally (and as demonstrated by Lilly) means attentions that are welcomed and well received, is now being taken to mean that the querent is a delusional no hoper who views the quesited as a supergod.
JF also uses the term reception so broadly that his explanations are inappropriate for the traditional understanding of the technique. He states that reception operates if any of the significators are in any dignity or debility of the other planet. As you can see from the article that gives a brief comparison of the definitions of reception by historical authors, there are usually minor points of difference between their definitions but there’s a pretty clear consensus upon the general principle involved:
Reception operates where the two planets are in aspect – unless it is mutual then we don’t need the aspect so much.
It’s only reliable if it involves reception by sign or exaltation or at least two of the minor dignities. (Morinus argues sign, exaltation or triplicity and ignored the minor dignities).
There’s no such thing as reception by debility. How can a planet receive another in a place it doesn’t own and that is actually hostile to it? It’s like hoping to make a deal with Osama Bin Laden at the Oval office of the white house – just doesn’t happen. If Bin Laden was there, he wouldn’t be in a position to exercise his influence in any meaningful manner.
JF suggests (in his example, ’Did he really love me?’ p.78 ff.) that because (according to his reasoning) Mars ‘detriments’ Venus, “he [Mars] hates her”. And likewise, because Venus ‘exalts’ Mars, she is “besotted with him”.
In fact there are none of the qualifications for reception between the two planets in his example – there is no mutual reception and they are not in a traditionally recognised aspect. With no reception we can only eliminate the use of it in the analysis. We don’t need it anyway because the reading of the chart is very clear from other factors, such as the position of the Moon, ruler of the 5th house, on the 5th house cusp, applying to the opposition of Venus, the querent.
But if we ignore the necessity for qualification as John seems to do, then wouldn’t the traditional interpretation (as you explained it above) be that Venus, being received into the exaltation of Mars, generated a strong reception from him? That he presented himself in his best light to her (a false and exaggerated light perhaps, as we see from the rest of the factors in the chart), and that he was very receptive to her interests and no doubt encouraged her attentions? But that by Mars being in her detriment, he had nothing to offer that was of real value to her and would only cause her to lose self-respect through her association with him?
Can you see how we are led in two completely different directions by the two approaches? In John’s explanation, she’s besotted by him but he hates her. In the traditional understanding of the technique, he is shown as a rat, he is bad for her, but he is still encouraging of her. The debility she would suffer through continuing the contact is more than she is willing to compromise herself over. The Moon’s opposition shows the thing is over, but it seems to me that the chart as a whole and his story “I only slept with someone else because I was blackmailed into it?” suggests he was still trying to lead her on, if only he could get away with it. If he hated her, why would he bother to come up with false explanations for his actions?
So I don’t think this is a case of John using different language to express the same principle. On the one hand I think his explanations are too simplistic, but on another I actually think they are overly complicated. It seems to involve an awful lot of analysis just to work out who or what is loving or liking whom or what, and who or what that significator is loving, liking, loathing and hating, then translating that into matters that relate to pay packets, etc, – just to figure out something that’s immediately obvious if we stick to the traditional expression of planets ‘receiving’ each other – the meaning of which is self-evident.
I actually think there are some real nuggets of gold in John’s book but I also think there are other areas like this, which can be misleading for anyone thinking (as most readers will) that it is going to be a great way to understand the traditional techniques used by Lilly. John claims that the rightful place for Lilly’s work is at the heart of the astrological canon, that it will remain the standard textbook of horary, and that where his book differs is in placing a greater emphasis upon first principles. But I think this example suggests that his employment of the technique falls outside of first principles (at least as demonstated by the majority of our primary sources), so – in light of how influential his book is likely to be - it seems fair to question what he has written on this, no matter how fond we may be of him.
| Quote: | | Anyway, I feel I have digressed into a defence of Frawley … which I guess in part it was, but also in part to nut out what I had learnt from Frawley’s books in the context of the seemingly ‘alternate’ discussion on reception. |
I’ve always liked John Frawley, have always admired and recommended his work and still do. But so much confusion has arisen lately the issue needs to be aired in the spirit of constructive debate - just as John (and I) would challenge some of Lilly's views even though we greatly respect him overall. John needs no defending. He can put a mean argument together when he wants to. I don't think he ever responds to discussion like this but maybe we’ll see it in his next book. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chrissymgreen
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dear deb,
oh yes, thank you for clarifying that about my example; i did not mean to say that saturn likes the moon by exaltation twice - gee, i must have been sleeping or rushed when i wrote that.
thank you too for the great article on reception! i have shared it with several friends.
annie, thanks for your input about dispositors! i hadnt thought about it much, but it seems to make a lot of sense.
great thread!
sincerely,
chrissy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnnieGoLightly
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Posts: 52
Location: Adelaide, SA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Deb
Brilliant!
Quite agree … a healthy and constructive debate is always a positive thing! It’s all too easy to fall into the habit of ‘well, such and such says … and therefore it must be true’, rather than actually switch on our brains and really considering what is being put forward and working towards a solid understanding.
And Bravo Ben!
From now on whenever I’m trying to work out ‘reception’ I will always hold the your description of the scene from ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ in the forefront of my mind … it explains it all so brilliantly that there can be no confusion!
Thank you to all who have made me seriously consider this topic … my understanding has been greatly enriched.
Ann
_________________
Ann |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deb
Administrator
Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3019
Location: England
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Annie I agree. There must have been a moment of real connection with the principle when Ben noted that scene in the film because his description of it has certainly struck a chord with me and many others, I know. (Plus it made me want to go and see the film, which I did, just to see that scene  )
I have wondered why it is such a classic and powerful analogy, and I suspect it is something about the Arabic trappings of the scenario. The Arabic astrologers seem to have been the ones who really developed this principle, and I always think that if you want to understand something, you should aim to see it through the eyes of those who placed most respect upon it.
Anyway, just want to add my thanks to Ben, for that and for lots of other support he gave me whilst I was preparing my article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom
Moderator
Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 2338
Location: New Jersey, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello,
I'm going to respond to Annie in this post and Deb in another as there is much to cover. What I'm offering I hope is a clarification of Joh Frawley's use of reception or at least the way I learned it in his horary course.
We are dealing with Jupiter in Taurus and Mercuy in Cancer.
In both the article in "The Astrologer's Apprentice" and in The Real Astrology Applied, John says something ike this: "Planets love the planets whose signs they are in. This does not only apply to relationships, if a planet is in the sign of dear old aunt Jane's 2nd house he loves her money. But for our purposes let's stick with the relationship.
Jupiter is in Taurus, he loves Venus, He holds the Moon in exaggerated esteem. Mercury in Cancer also loves the Moon and holds Jupiter in high esteem (Mercury in the exaltation of Jupiter). Now whatever the Moon represents in the chart at hand is that which the parties hold in common. John has stated that exaltation is often what the astrologer sees at the beginning of the relationship when one's unsavory habits are considered charming. After a while the luster wears off. If the relationship never gets beyond exaltation, it is not based in any kind of reality. If we're talking about horary, we're talking about the emotions at the time of the question. This chart is not like a nativity following quesited and querent around for the duration.
Rulership shows love, exaltation shows exaggerated feeling, adnd triplicity shows friendship. If the above is a night chart, Jupiter is in the exaltation and triplicity of the Moon. He is nuts about the Moon. If it's a day chart he is in rulership and triplicity of Venus, so we must find out what Venus is doing or what Venus represents. The same is true for the Moon. If the Moon represents Jupiter's mother, this could have a negative effect on the relationship, or maybe Mercury feels the same way aout the sweet old lady.
Debility works the same way. Jupiter is in the detriment of Mars in Taurus. So Jupiter "hates" Mars, and I don't know that this must be taken literally, but rather metaphorically. Mars could be anything in the chart Jupiter doesn't like. Mercury is in the detriment of Saturn and fall of Mars, so they both dislike whatever it is that Mars represents (Let's hope it's not THAT!).
As for who exactly receives whom and what this all means I'll try to explain in a response to Deb. I've only glanced at her post so far, but I wanted to get this much out there, before the subject gets cold.
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sue
Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Mercury in Cancer also loves the Moon and holds Jupiter in high esteem (Mercury in the exaltation of Jupiter). |
| Quote: | | Rulership shows love, exaltation shows exaggerated feeling, adnd triplicity shows friendship. |
Yes, but whose exaggerated feeling? In the example of Jupiter in Taurus and Mercury in Cancer, Mercury is in the exaltation of Jupiter. Jupiter exalts Mercury. And why turn it into a negative thing when it is actually positive? As I said in a previous post, John would have us reading this as Mercury puts Jupiter on a pedestal and has exaggerated feelings for Jupiter, the implication being that this is a negative thing. However, Jupiter exalts Mercury, inviting Mercury into its home and confering positive benefits onto Mercury because of its fondness for it. If I invite a close friend into my home and take care of them because I am very fond of them how does that then put the friend in a position of weakness? One would think that the friend gains strength from being so well thought of.
| Quote: | | John has stated that exaltation is often what the astrologer sees at the beginning of the relationship when one's unsavory habits are considered charming. After a while the luster wears off. If the relationship never gets beyond exaltation, it is not based in any kind of reality. |
In all of the traditional texts, exaltation is the second most positive and beneficial of all receptions. In John's examples it has become one of the least desirable. He seems to equate exaltation with unreasonable infatuation. This goes against tradition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deb
Administrator
Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3019
Location: England
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Tom,
That is exactly how I had understood John’s meaning (as you’ll see when you read the above posts).
I think you do need to read my posts and perhaps read my article to understand why I suggest this is misleading. The way that JF is advocating the use of dispositors is peculiar to him. You can’t identify who someone loves just by looking at ‘the planet that rules the sign their significator is in’. That’s unreliable and very oversimplified.
If you look at what Annie explained in her first post above, you’ll see that her original conclusions were very similar to some that you made, (following John’s approach), on the first page of this thread concerning the chart of the woman and the old man. I have reproduced the chart below and I have also put the chart and Lilly’s full judgement at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aged.html because so many people have referred to it in this and other threads.
Annie said that Jupiter loves Venus and Mercury loves the Moon. So, taking Venus as a co-significator for the woman [Lilly says he only takes Mercury for the woman’s significator but let’s overlook that point and assume he would accept Venus as a co-significator]; and using the Moon as a co-significator for the querent, she then deduced that he was 'into' her and she was 'into' herself. You also said the same in your earlier post when you wrote:
| Quote: | | The lady is Mercury in Cancer. Who does she love? The Moon. Who is the Moon? She is the Moon or at least the Moon represents her as emotional being. In short she loves herself. |
But that’s not the case - the woman did have an affection for the older man, but at the point of the horary her affections were for a soldier (Mars), which Lilly saw straight away by the fact that both the Moon and Mercury (her significators) are separating from Jupiter (older man) and applying to Mars (so both of her significators are transferring from Jupiter to Mars). Mercury is almost exact in its application to the square of Mars and the fact that hers is the applying planet suggests she is the one with the inclination to develop the relationship with the soldier.
But Lilly also saw that the soldier wasn’t interested, because the application between Mercury and Mars is by square without an effective reception. There’s only one minor reception involved (Mars receives Mercury by triplicity; Mercury doesn’t receive Mars). That wouldn’t be enough to overcome the difficulties of a square, let alone a square to a naturally malefic planet in the 8th house of anguish and disappointment. Without a reliable reception, Mars is a destructive (or as Lilly calls it ‘impediting’) planet in this chart. The square without reception brings disappointment and upset, and Mars is in its own sign so, overall, it’s clear he’s not interested and pursuing that relationship will only lead to grief. Although the Moon is applying to Mars by sextile it’s not enough to overcome the difficulties because both the Moon and Mars are in unfortunate houses (she’s debilitated in the 6th) and again there’s no reception to boost the flagging argument.
| Quote: | | I judged the maid’s affection was alienated from the old man, and that she desired such a man as Mars, viz, a Captain of Soldier, etc and that she should be crossed therein by reason both Mars and Moon were in unfortunate houses: nor had Mercury or Luna any dignities where Mars was, or in the sign, and degree where himself was: all this was acknowledged with tears. |
So the old man wants her, but she doesn’t want him. She wants a soldier, who doesn’t want her –pretty much your standard ‘tear-jerking’ relationship horary :)
Lilly has derived his judgement simply and efficiently. He has a clear understanding of who is attracted to who, and who returns the interest or not - just from a firm understanding of the principles of aspects and reception.
If it was just a matter of looking at the dispositor, then any significator in Cancer is going to be incapable of extending love towards someone else isn’t it? We are always going to say they love their own self.
The only time the principle ‘the planet loves the planet that rules the sign it is in’ holds reliably true, is when a planet is in its own sign. Then it either shows self-respect or self-absorption depending on how it all falls out accidentally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
