Questions re: interpretation

1
Hi:

I've recently cast a relationship horary where the quesited's significator conjuncts another planet (not the querent) as its first aspect. This conjunction is "within orb" at the time of the horary. I would just like to confirm that this indicates that the quesited has a significant other.

Also, the quesited only receives two planets by face, otherwise is in "negative reception" (detriment and fall) with two others and doesn't receive the remaining two at all.

Does this mean anything in terms of the character/situation of the quesited? In other words, we give a description of the person signified by which planet it is, its essential dignity, and its position in the chart but does its ability to receive the other planets reveal something further about the individual? I'm using classical reception, not Mr. Frawley's.

Thanks in advance.

:)

2
To clarify:

The quesited's significator is the only planet in the chart that does not receive another planet by domicile, exaltation or two of the minor dignities. I am wondering if anything regarding the quesited's character or situation can be inferred from this.

Thanks.

:)

Re: Questions re: interpretation

4
moonbright wrote: Also, the quesited only receives two planets by face, otherwise is in "negative reception" (detriment and fall) with two others and doesn't receive the remaining two at all.
[...]
I'm using classical reception, not Mr. Frawley's.
By the way - as far as I know the term of "negative reception" is an Invention of Frawley, not one used by Tradition.
:D

5
"Negative reception" is probably too big a subject to get into here, and the subject has been discussed countless times on the forum - I recommend anyone do a search of the forum to find out more about that.

But really any horary is going to have lots of different kinds of testimony and it's not enough to simply make a blanket statement that if the quesited is conjunct another planet, the only conclusion can be that he is in a relationship with someone else. Horary is never that simplistic so nobody can state for certainty either way what that means especially without even seeing the chart.

If you do post the chart as Johannes suggests, which only seems sensible, please make an effort to provide us with the interpretation you have of the chart and your rationale for it.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

6
Hi:

I won't be posting the chart because I've already interpreted it and feel secure in my interpretation (which is why I didn't post it in the first place).

1. Thanks Johannes for sourcing the origins of "negative reception" - I had read the term on the forum but used it in quotes because I wasn't sure I was using it correctly. I see that I am not and will not use it further.

2. Paul, there's at least one forum thread each where Deborah Houlding and Wade Caves say that if the one of the significators perfects an aspect with another planet before perfecting an aspect with the querent or quesited then they have probably met someone else. Now, I do a lot of reading late at night so it's possible I've misinterpreted that. I'll have a look again; it may take a while to go through the downloads on my phone.

3. Any takers on the second question?

Cheers.

:)

7
moonbright wrote:Hi:

I won't be posting the chart because I've already interpreted it and feel secure in my interpretation (which is why I didn't post it in the first place).
As you wish Moonbright, but really the forum works best when everyone contributes. It's nice to provide a rationale so other people can learn and understand your approach. The purpose of the forum is not to provide a free question and answer service here so the more detail and explanation any of us provides the richer the forum will be as a result.
2. Paul, there's at least one forum thread each where Deborah Houlding and Wade Caves say that if the one of the significators perfects an aspect with another planet before perfecting an aspect with the querent or quesited then they have probably met someone else.
But the question you asked was "I would just like to confirm that this indicates that the quesited has a significant other" - it doesn't, it's a possibility of course and it may even be probable all other things considered. Of course if you were already set on deciding that you were indeed sure and felt confirmed that it means this, there was probably very little reason to ask the question.

If Deb or Wade disagree on this, which is totally possibly but to be honest, I find it unlikely, then I'm happy to agree to disagree and I stand by my opinion on this. I just can't imagine someone like Wade or Deb saying "if there's another planet, the only thing it can be is that the other person has a significant other". Sometimes things just don't sound right, and that's one of them in my view.

In any event, it would be useful to provide the threads if you find them so we can examine what is said. Either way, if you already feel you know the answer, by all means we can agree to disagree.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

8
Paul wrote:
As you wish Moonbright, but really the forum works best when everyone contributes.
Are you suggesting I haven't contributed? If that's your assertion I find that ridiculous in the extreme. I've contributed charts with interpretations and answered others people's questions as best I can within the knowledge that I possess.

Paul wrote:
The purpose of the forum is not to provide a free question and answer service here so the more detail and explanation any of us provides the richer the forum will be as a result.
???!!! Seriously??? You think I'm looking for a free question and answer service??? The questions I have posed have been researched as best I can or they have been things I cannot interpret in a chart that I have looked at and tried to interpret repeatedly and been unable to do so.

In my opinion, this forum repeatedly degenerates into an "advice to the lovelorn" forum instead of an actual ASTROLOGY forum, so that useful questions and their answers get lost in the Sturm und Drang of yet another love story gone wrong. That kind of stuff makes great copy but it's NOT astrology. I repeatedly have reasonably thought out questions that I've asked completely blown off or criticized by this forum while the "tea and sympathy" crowd rush to comfort another broken heart OR people who use only Frawley respond which is no help to me because I don't use that method.

Paul wrote:
Of course if you were already set on deciding that you were indeed sure and felt confirmed that it means this, there was probably very little reason to ask the question.
moonbright wrote:
Now, I do a lot of reading late at night so it's possible I've misinterpreted that. I'll have a look again; it may take a while to go through the downloads on my phone.
As you can tell from the rest of what I said, I was not set on deciding anything. As well, I asked the question in good faith and whether or not the quesited had a significant other was not the horary question. It was an ancillary interpretation based on what I saw in the chart.

Again, no answers to reasonable questions on this forum. Just more grief.

9
Moonbright

Firstly, my apologies, I was confusing these two threads at the same time:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9313

In this forum you respond with a judgement and not an interpretation. I confused the reply here with the request I made there for a fuller interpretation (I see you edited your post with nonsense for whatever reason). Notice that in this situation you're not the one looking for free advice, but rather providing a free answer as it were, but in a way that nobody else will ever be able to follow or reproduce or grow from because the spirit of the forum isn't answering people's horaries, it's discussing them together. For what it's worth, I absolutely do not think you just want a free answer service, so apologies if that came across that way.

Really all I wanted to encourage was broader discussion not narrow ended finalities.

Your post seems quite defensive though and I'm not sure there's much to be gained by replying much further to you without escalating things. What I will say is that nobody is forced or compelled to answer any horary - nor more than you are. If people are not answering the horaries that you feel are more important, you are free to seek out professional assistance from a horary astrologer. This forum does not pretend to provide that service, it is instead a community, and naturally within communities some people's concerns get more attention than others.

I can't help but point out however that you are criticising the forum members or perhaps more specifically me for not addressing your concerns which you state are reasonably thought out. But the very fact that people have posted here to address your concerns should at least go some way to suggesting quite the opposite - that you may not like the answers given or find them helpful is not something the forum could ever aim or pretend to control.

I for one stand by my advice here - it's impossible to fully address your questions without a chart to provide context for them. As always you are free to disagree with me and you can just take my advice in the spirit in which it was intended, or you can elect not to do that. It would be simpler, perhaps, to provide a rule which trumps all rules and state that whenever the quesited aspects another planet, that means the quesited is in a relationship. Unfortunately I do not believe in such rules in horary and context is always important.

Whatever else you may feel, you shouldn't feel you need to agree with me on any of my opinions here, and if you find my advice or attempt at help was not useful or helpful, then you can always remain free to simply ignore it.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

10
Your post seems quite defensive though
I'm not defensive. I'm angry. Entirely different thing.

I can't help but point out however that you are criticising the forum members
I'm not criticising forum members; see below.

it's impossible to fully address your questions without a chart to provide context for them.
Not true. Both questions are general questions regarding interpretation. You answered the first one. I have never seen any reference to the second idea in anything I've read thus far and was wanting to know if anyone else had. The chart is unlikely to aid in the interpretation of that.

I want to make it clear that my private life (ie: the chart) is exactly that: mine and private.



My frustration, distilled to its essence:

The entire thrust of this website is about traditional astrology and the ?horary course? offered within uses traditional techniques.

I stumbled across this website, became interested in traditional astrology including horary, bought the most basic of books and proceeded to attempt to learn horary to see if it was something that could be incorporated into my astrology ?practice?.

However, the forum at this time, unlike in previous years apparently, provides very little to no support for anyone using traditional astrology techniques to interpret horary charts. Unfortunately, when first reading this forum there was no way for me to understand that because I was completely new to all of it.

I have no issue with Mr. Frawley, his techniques or his adherents. I know nothing about his point of view so cannot argue for or against it, and because I have already invested time, money and energy towards my goal of learning traditional astrology I am deeply reluctant to ?change canoes midstream?.

I?m well aware that every astrologer chooses techniques and practices that they feel works for them. My point of view on that is ?whatever blows your hair back? - I wouldn?t expect anyone to choose my methods for me so I won?t attempt to tell anyone else what they should do.

But, I came to this website and the forum within it because I thought that I would be supported in learning traditional techniques; it certainly is the emphasis for most of the rest of the site but we all know that Mr. Frawley?s technique is not traditional. So I feel more than a little cheated by the fact that there is basically no support for the use of traditional techniques at this time.

When I post a chart and attempt a delineation, the feedback I get is almost entirely from people who use Frawley which may help them to learn horary but it doesn?t help me one bit. I am no further along in my knowledge because there is no appropriate feedback.

I feel like I have wasted a huge amount of time, money and energy on something that feels a lot like ?bait and switch? - advertise one thing, sell another.

There is an online horary class being offered in January which I would like to take but I am reluctant to invest the money because I know that once I am done the course that there will be no place to get feedback on my charts. So why take it? Without any informed critique about my delineations I am simply left to guess whether I?ve done anything within the constraints of traditional astrology, which is what I came here to learn.

My frustration with this finally boiled over in my previous posts. It has nothing to do with wanting to browbeat people into interpreting my charts or criticizing others for their choice of technique or horary question. It has everything to do with the lack of focus on the stated goals and guidelines of this forum such as:
?we want to make this forum useful to astrologers who are committed to studying this subject intently.

We do not expect that you know everything there is to know about horary before posting here, only that you demonstrate a genuine commitment to studying horary and understanding its philosophy - keeping the focus on the horary techniques and principles and not on your own personal issues.

?And please use traditionally established sources whenever possible.

We hope everyone realises why these policies are being emphasised here, so that everyone is clear about what to expect,?
Source: sticky at the top of the Horary & Electional Astrology forum


In my opinion, Skyscript has failed to adhere to its own standards and as a result you get people like me who thought you were acting with integrity and are really angry because they feel they?ve been misled.

I want to make it clear that I do not think this is the fault of the moderators, et al. I think it's something that simply happened organically. What the solution is I don't know. Perhaps the forum could be split between practitioners of Frawley's methods and everyone else. Just an idea.

11
Moonbright

I've PM'd you and I think some of what you say could be expanded on more off the public forum so we can take into consideration some of your points.

I'm sorry the site has disappointed you, but in reading some of your thoughts on the site and its intent I found myself realising that we probably both see the site slightly differently. I've highlighted some of these below and wanted to just speak generally to some of your points.
Not true. Both questions are general questions regarding interpretation. You answered the first one. I have never seen any reference to the second idea in anything I've read thus far and was wanting to know if anyone else had. The chart is unlikely to aid in the interpretation of that.
It's a frustrating experience to be asked a question and then, in the midst of doing your best to answer it, the person who asks dismisses it anyway. I understand why and I am likewise a very private person, I believe in all the time I've spent on this forum, and I spent even longer lurking anonymously before posting, that I have posted exactly one chart of my own. I do understand that your private life is private. It is, however, a difficult thing because you want an absolute answer, as I understand it, to actually a broad question dictated by context. You may disagree with that and if we want we can focus on it and I could try to provide contrary examples or sources.

But as I see it, nobody can simply answer that the fact the quesited is with a planet means that planet represents a significant other. More on that in my next post.
The entire thrust of this website is about traditional astrology and the ?horary course? offered within uses traditional techniques.
I'm totally sympathetic to that conclusion but it isn't quite correct, at least not to my mind. The site is really for anyone interested in astrology, but the site does seek to at least provide a space where people interested in traditional forms in particular can find something meaningful and a place to express that free from prejudice. Whilst it's true that the forum has always put a healthy focus on traditional perspectives, that is never to exclusion of any other form of astrology provided the astrologer is sincere and serious in their work. There is a traditional forum dedicated to purely traditional forms of astrology and it's encouraged, and at times more strictly enforced, that psychological or modern forms of astrology be avoided there, but that is not the case for the horary forum. Anyone of any form of horary, provided it's studious and serious in its intent, is welcome here. Sometimes that means we all just have to try to get along and agree to disagree at times.
When I post a chart and attempt a delineation, the feedback I get is almost entirely from people who use Frawley which may help them to learn horary but it doesn?t help me one bit. I am no further along in my knowledge because there is no appropriate feedback.
I understand that there are students of some or other school of astrology who really push that form of astrology, but they, no doubt, look at other posts, perhaps your own, and say the same - that there is an attempt to limit or censor serious forms of horary. That's not something I want for this forum and I don't think in truth many people would want that from the forum, or have people afraid to post their ideas in case they get shouted down for them for not following some so-called 'establishment'.

All that's important is that everyone commits themselves to a genuine, sincere and honest study of the subject.
But, I came to this website and the forum within it because I thought that I would be supported in learning traditional techniques; it certainly is the emphasis for most of the rest of the site but we all know that Mr. Frawley?s technique is not traditional. So I feel more than a little cheated by the fact that there is basically no support for the use of traditional techniques at this time.
I personally consider Frawley's work to be traditionally-inspired. His horary book is really excellent at providing warmth and humour to horary, but conversely it does suffer from confusion on what is genuinely part of a long lineage of horary tradition and what is a modern understanding, or, more specifically, a Frawley understanding. It is difficult because his book is very popular because it is so accessible and not everyone realises that they are not doing horary as the sources or ancients that they are inspired by did it. The best any of us can hope to do is provide another way of looking at a chart or thinking of a chart and if people find that more useful, in the long run, they will adopt it. If not, maybe there's something to Frawley's techniques after all.
In my opinion, Skyscript has failed to adhere to its own standards and as a result you get people like me who thought you were acting with integrity and are really angry because they feel they?ve been misled.
That's disappointing Moonbright. I wrote this piece and have honestly did my best not only in the horary forum but even on the other forums to adhere to that standard - that the most important determination is that the person be honest and sincere and demonstrate a genuine commitment to the study of horary. I believe many of the people here who use methods I do not, fall exactly into that category - they are indeed committed to the study of horary. But the forum also recognises people of varying experience and understanding of horary.

Unfortunately though the forum cannot be the only provider of astrological learning and would never pretend to - I do agree with you however that there have been some more frivolous charts especially in the last year and I haven't been so quick to moderate them or improve standards and I take that criticism even if it wasn't directed to me personally. I'll renew myself to making sure that serious questions are dealt with appropriately. Unfortunately, like all members of the forum, sometimes life matters take over and astrology can take a back seat or time can be difficult to find.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

12
Moonbright

Starting over and taking another stab at your questions, hopefully others can chime in. Feel free to disagree with anything I say, or, better yet, ask me for a reference for it if you feel it's against your understanding of the tradition.
moonbright wrote:I've recently cast a relationship horary where the quesited's significator conjuncts another planet (not the querent) as its first aspect. This conjunction is "within orb" at the time of the horary. I would just like to confirm that this indicates that the quesited has a significant other.
Not to repeat my previous points too much, I for one could not confirm that. It could in fact represent a meddling family member, an influential friend getting in between you both, or some other circumstance that attempts to diminish or prohibit your relationship. A significant other is only one of several things that this planet could be. I wish I could provide a strict rule like "whenever the quesited aspects another planet first, that planet represents another person the quesited is in a relationship with instead" but we never see anything like that kind of finality written by the traditional sources in horary - when we see similar things it's only after ruling several other things out. We may also want to make sure this planet isn't translating or collecting light for the two main significators.

We see instead things like Bonatti, Umar and Mashallah etc. asking us to check what house that planet rules and to extract information on who or what that prohibiting planet is likely to be from this and the nature of the planet itself. Aspecting, for example, Venus may well be another woman, but it just may also be that he's joined an arts program in University and we see that Venus rules the 9th and this man simply doesn't have the inclination for a relationship right now. These things do happen. So Bonatti has a section in which he addresses the idea of discovering what it is which prevents a relationship from happening and he goes through each of the 12 houses to offer examples of what that interposing planet could be.

Keep in mind we also do not know the exact nature of the question you asked - "will he come back to me", "is he in another relationship", "will it work after this first date" etc.
I hope you understand from this that it really cannot be said that we can confirm that the interposing planet is a significant other. It could just as likely be the Lord of the 5th with other signification going on that may lead us to believe it's a child. Depending on whether it is a benefic or malefic will also help us better understand what this planet is.

Of course you may have ruled all these things out already, but we have no way of knowing that.
Also, the quesited only receives two planets by face, otherwise is in "negative reception" (detriment and fall) with two others and doesn't receive the remaining two at all.
Negative reception is a controversial topic. Johannes suggests this is an invention of Frawley though I am not quite so sure we can be confident of that. At the very least there is in fact some supporting testimony to this idea in Bonatti, but it's an idea that gets mentioned almost in passing and it's difficult to see any clear use of it in practice by the traditional authors. Still others come to the same conclusion themselves just applying what appears like simple logic to the problem. I'm inlined to take note when the two planets are in the detriment of one another and whilst it may make me that much surer, if other signs in the chart are clear, that the relationship will not happen, or will only happen with a lot of quarrelling and misunderstanding and miscommunication, I don't see it as an 'active' thing we need to look out for, it's just something we might find interesting more in a sense that these people are coming from different worlds or need different things.
Does this mean anything in terms of the character/situation of the quesited? In other words, we give a description of the person signified by which planet it is, its essential dignity, and its position in the chart but does its ability to receive the other planets reveal something further about the individual?
I'm not sure I follow exactly what you mean. I know there is a stream of thought that says that poorly dignified planets cannot receive. I think they can receive, we may want to question the quality of that reception but I do think they can receive. So with that in mind, let's assume all planets have the ability to receive other planets.

Perhaps you really mean does the fact that planet receives or does not receive other planets affect that planet's situation or our judgement of who that planet signifies. To an extent yes. If we see planets receiving as being open to the influence of the planets which they receive, or, to word it another way, if we see aspects with reception by a given planet indicating that this given planet is ameliorated in its relationship to the other planets, then yes this informs us about the character or situation of the receiving planet.

If a planet is not receiving your significator or indeed any other planets, it could well be that this planet is really not as engaged as you may have expected/hoped/whatever. But it's not the only part of the puzzle. Typically he swifter planets are the ones we see as the more keen, and so if a swifter planet does not receive, this is less of a big deal than if the slower planet does not receive. But if we imagine a slower moving planet is not receiving any planets, and is, say, the quesited in a romance horary, they may not be interested in the querent, particularly if there's no aspect or there's only an aspect by, say, an opposition, but equally they may not be interested in anyone else right now in that context. People already married or settled down or fulfilled in their romance are simply not in a mindset of looking for romance from you or anyone else. Likewise people are choosing to focus on career or some other goal important to them or are engaged with taking care of their health or readying to move home to another city or country may also show up with this sense of indifference.

It's a very big question and a really difficult one to provide a helpful answer for because there are many contexts in which something like that could indeed be very important, but we equally shouldn't assume it's of equal importance in every horary.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/