37 by Clelia Romano Hi Astrojin: Clelia: First of all, reception is basically rulership NO it's not. Dispositorship, reception, mutual reception, mutual generosity are all different. It is up to you to stop watching the discussion, but if someone else is able to elucidade the difference between reception and rulership, I?d be grateful, specially if we can expect different things from reception than from rulership. Thank you Clelia http://www.astrologiahumana.com Quote Sun Mar 13, 2011 5:14 am
38 by Clelia Romano I think we can say that my example was "generosity", because a planet gives some of his nature to the other. But being a dispositor of other planet shows the dispositor?s power over the matter of the house that he rules and, if it is a planet there, the planet is also is under the dispositor power and nature. Maybe can be a difference, if we think that in reception there is a chance of pushing, if the planet has some dignity to give it away to the other,if there is aspect etc. Neverthless, the dipositor being of good esse and being in a good house gives a beneficial power to the sign it rules. And the opposite occurs. For me it is more a semantic difference... Thinking, thinking, thinking... have a good night all of you Cl?lia http://www.astrologiahumana.com Quote Sun Mar 13, 2011 5:44 am
39 by Clelia Romano Hi All: I?m strong minded when the question is to finish a discussion with some kind of conclusion. I have a book from Avraham Ibn Ezra named ?The Judgment of the Stars". It is very similar in contents to his other astrological texts. The text was found by the ?Escuela de Traductores de Sirventa? in Spain where the author lived the last period of his life. The agenda of the Escuola, or School is to recuperate ancient astrological texts, mostly coming from Arab authors. I bought this book, but as I was insecure if it was a real Ibn Ezra, I wrote to Mrs. Meira Epstein and she kindly answered me that she had the book in Hebrew manuscripts. Eventually she will translate it too. She said that the book I was referring to probably was translated to Spanish from the Hebrew, Catalan or Latin. All this because I?ll quote part of this book, related to reception, and I needed to give a bibliographical reference. From ?The Book of Judgments of the Stars?, Edition Biblioteca Sadalsuud, page 117: ?When 2 planets are found each one in the domicile or exaltation of the other, or in any of their dignities we call generosity and even if there is no conjunction or aspect between them we consider it a reception.? I do not think that the simple fact of an ancient author to have called this kind of relation between planets a "reception" is the supreme law. But it is in agreement with my reasoning and with the way that me and many other astrologers frequently refer a planet as " receiving the other" when a planet is the dispositor or ruler of this one. I want to thank to all of you who contributed to the present discussion, specially to Astrojin and Olivia who insisted in the question of aspect. This was kind of a blind side in my mind when I fisrt posted the question, even reading and reading the same books that you read ( and this is important to me, i.e, to share ideas with a similar group). It was useful also to share the idea that reception ( with aspect) is not every time useful. The fact of joining and sharing our ideas is very important in the aim of revisiting the astrological tradition . Clelia http://www.astrologiahumana.com Quote Sun Mar 13, 2011 4:41 pm
40 by The alchemist @Astrojin: gravity is what makes the planets go round. I know it's hard for some to understand, but please ...try! :-) As for the reception issue and whether mutual reception without an aspect is mutual reception or generosity: I really don't understand why we have to use different terms for the same concept. The concept is simple: two planets are in each other's houses. What happens next is another issue. The details and the way this will work out in the end obviously depend on the zodiacal state of the planets involved and the aspects (if any) involved. But the fundamental concept remains the same. Quote Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:33 pm
41 by Olivia And I have to split hairs again. First - reception requires aspect (according to most everyone). Second - you could have two planets in a major dignity (domicile, exaltation) or two minor dignities (triplicity, term, face) of each other in true reception as well, as long as they aspect each other. Time and again, I have not seen generosity produce the results reception does. I've seen very little, if any, 'planetary aid' from generosity, whilst reception is often very definitive in a chart, and colours it so much. Quote Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:44 pm
42 by Tom Splitting hair and Occam's razor? Perhaps we should not split hair and just say that aspects are all the same regardless of the types in the spirit of Occam's razor? We do or almost. Many of the old texts refer to two kinds of aspects hard and soft. Writers as diverse as Morin and Noel Tyl say that soft aspects aren't very strong no matter what. So they use only hard aspects for the most part. We have orbs for aspects that no one can agree on and we can't agree whether they must be "in sign" or not. We claim there is a difference in applying and separating aspects and outside of horary, no one mentions it in delineation. We had dexter and sinister aspects, dropped them and are none the worse for it. In short there is a great deal of disharmony over aspects and we don't do ourselves any favors by introducing more and more arcane terminology in other areas that has little if any specificity. Keep it Simple; it will work. Where do we draw the line? I draw the line at reception. Quote Sun Mar 13, 2011 7:30 pm
43 by Mark Tom wrote: We have orbs for aspects that no one can agree on and we can't agree whether they must be "in sign" or not. We claim there is a difference in applying and separating aspects and outside of horary, no one mentions it in delineation. We had dexter and sinister aspects, dropped them and are none the worse for it. In short there is a great deal of disharmony over aspects and we don't do ourselves any favors by introducing more and more arcane terminology in other areas that has little if any specificity. Keep it Simple; it will work. That sounds like a bit of a slippery slope position to me. The fact there are nuances and some divergences in traditional sources is not a reason to abandon them all. The term 'keep it simple' means what in practical terms? Throw out planetary orbs? Reject the distinctions between generosity and mutual reception? This sounds very like John Frawley to me. Why draw the line there though? What about those antiquated notions like triplicity, term and face? Equally, those quite 'arcane' notions like planetary sect, or those weird parts/lots? Who exactly decides what is arcane? I'm sure its not your intention Tom but your rationale could be used as a justification for rejecting most of traditional astrology in general. Mark As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:28 pm
44 by Tanit Time and again, I have not seen generosity produce the results reception does. I have to agree with Olivia. Horary is probably more easily observable than other branches of astrology, but even in natal I don't see this working. Maybe those who find reception without aspect working can post examples where it works, etc. (in traditional texts, as this is a traditional area of the forum). I hate to go off on a tangent (although this relates to reception a bit), but there was mention of giving separating and applying aspects the same meaning in natal, and I have never heard of this in traditional. Lilly posts many statements about separating vs. applying aspects in Book III of Christian Astrology, his natal section of the book, for example. Also, if you have Mercury separating from Saturn, next separating from Jupiter before it aspects Mars, for example, it is not besieged, thanks to Jupiter. You do not regard all three aspects the same and Mercury is more likely to take on the characteristics of Jupiter because Jupiter was his most recent aspect (he is "charged" with Jupiter). If you regarded separating and applying aspects the same there would not even be besiegment (it would not be a concept we use and observe) because in order to be besieged, a planet must be separating from one malefic and apply to the other. I have certainly seen this in natal. So... Quote Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:05 pm
45 by Olivia The dreaded in my chart example (sorry, Tom). Jupiter is my ascendant ruler and is besieged - it's separating from a partile trine to Mars and applying to a partile sextile of Saturn - the latter in perfect reception, Jupiter in Libra, and Saturn in Sag. Both have much accidental dignity (10th house Jupiter, 1st house Saturn), and at least some essential dignity, so they aren't peregrine. Do I notice the besiegement? Only about every day. But here's the kicker. I also have Jupiter in generosity with an exalted Venus in Pisces, my one unafflicted planet and my chart almuten. The effects? None that I've ever been able to discern. Venus is closely (within 7 minutes) conjunct Achernar, and that kicks in occasionally, but that's not quite the same influence as Jupiter is (especially not a besieged Jupiter), though the star is of a Jupiter nature as far as I can discern. Yes, I could have dragged in a hapless client or three's natal charts instead (I have a lot with besieged 7th rulers), but it's about the same any way I've seen it. If anything, reception makes it worse, and I do speak of reception with aspect. Generosity doesn't seem to help abate, nor does it seem to particularly worsen - I'm really not sure if it does anything. And I have thought long and hard on this one, and studied more than a few charts with these configurations. Quote Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:12 pm
46 by Clelia Romano Mark wrote:Tom wrote: We have orbs for aspects that no one can agree on and we can't agree whether they must be "in sign" or not. We claim there is a difference in applying and separating aspects and outside of horary, no one mentions it in delineation. We had dexter and sinister aspects, dropped them and are none the worse for it. In short there is a great deal of disharmony over aspects and we don't do ourselves any favors by introducing more and more arcane terminology in other areas that has little if any specificity. Keep it Simple; it will work. Mark wrote: That sounds like a bit of a slippery slope position to me. The fact there are nuances and some divergences in traditional sources is not a reason to abandon them all. The term 'keep it simple' means what in practical terms? Throw out planetary orbs? Reject the distinctions between generosity and mutual reception? This sounds very like John Frawley to me. Why draw the line there though? What about those antiquated notions like triplicity, term and face? Equally, those quite 'arcane' notions like planetary sect, or those weird parts/lots? Who exactly decides what is arcane? I'm sure its not your intention Tom but your rationale could be used as a justification for rejecting most of traditional astrology in general. I have to say that I completely agree with Mark, Tom. I wrote an article, my last one, about aspects and I will pick a paragraph of it because it has to do with the very concept of aspect and why one only degree can change all the scene. ?Although we are accustomed to think that all happens in a continuum, there is instead a discontinuity, a jump from a quality to another. Actually there are groups of discontinuous entities. Therefore we calculate a chart of the Ingress for the Sun in Aries at 0 ? 0 '0''. This is precisely because of this kind of rationale; a single second in time changes everything. For example, if we use the twelvefold division of the sign (dodecatemoria), a procedure that is equivalent to multiply by 12 every degree, minute and second of a chart, and compare the charts of twins born seconds apart, you will notice differences in the position of the planets, explaining important differences in their lives. The sign and the division?s extent are a ?quantum?. The word ?moira? means degree in Greek and we can find in all ancient languages a common philological root when we want to refer to destiny. Moira is the portion pertaining to each one in life. Pars is the Latin word to moyrae in Greek. Therefore we say that an event will change when a significator that was intertwined with another one, in con juntio with it changes its very grade. If the planets are still moiricon or "partile" they change together. If not, not.? end of quote So partile, applying or separating from one or more degrees change totally the meaning. This is a philosophical and practical observation. The thing is not simple and to turn a complex art, science and philosophy like astrology into a plain doctrine is simplistic and can be even disastrous. But in one thing I agree with you: if 2 planets rule each other domicile even not seeing the other, they act like a reception, even not making aspect. But perhaps it is not good to use the same name ( reception) because itt can generate confusion with the concept of reception and mutual reception , generosity, pushing virtue, etc. Maybe I?ll call what happens mutual rulership. Clelia http://www.astrologiahumana.com Quote Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:32 am
47 by Clelia Romano Maybe those who find reception without aspect working can post examples where it works, etc. (in traditional texts, as this is a traditional area of the forum). Hi Tanit, Ibn Ezra do not give any examples of his thinking. What I can say is that I studied a kind of mistery chart with my students, and this time some one of them brought the chart. The ASC was Scorpio, 22 degrees, Jupiter was in 11 degrees of Scorpio and Mars at 8 degrees of Sagittarius. I have to say that the life of the native because of the mutual rulership developed almost between this 2 areas: him and his money, the first and the 2nd house. When this kind of thing happens in the ASC we can see clearly the fact that there are not much scape but through the triplicity rulers of the ASC: in the present case the Moon was in the 5th in Pisces and Venus in the cusp of the 12th. Cl?lia http://www.astrologiahumana.com Quote Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:51 am
48 by The alchemist Olivia wrote:And I have to split hairs again. No, you don't Olivia. I've read your previous posts and the reception debate and I am familiar with the concept of reception and its variants (generosity, liberality etc). Different authors used different terms to describe the same thing. But the basic principle remains the same. Two planets are in each other's house and this will tend to produce some results: a.with aspect, b. without aspect, c. without (applying) aspect but from sings beholding each other. The rest is a matter of fine-tuning and interpretation. Two planets in each other's house with aspect will produce definite and concrete results, two planets is each other's house without aspect may or may not produce results (depending on zodiacal state and the rest of the chart, house placement), etc. Some astrologers used to call mutual reception without aspect "liberality" or "generosity". Nowadays, we call it mutual reception. The question then becomes: do we need to restore the older terms or can we just work by using terms such as reception with/without aspect? Just as long as the concepts behind the words remain clear, I don't think that should be the problem. I would prefer to use the same term for the same principle than to have to divide the principle into "reception", "mutual reception", "liberality", "generosity", "dispositorship" etc ad nauseam. Quote Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:04 am