Skyscript Astrology Forum

The same chart would be approached and interpreted in different ways by different astrologers. The fact remains that Morin used mutual reception without an aspect in his interpretation. Why do we have to analyze it so much? Discrediting Morin or his analysis will not provide us with anything valuable.

BTW, one of the reasons why I like Lilly so much is because he presented a complete course, which was based on the knowledge and the writings of his predecessors and the significant experience he had acquired from his own practice. This is something that cannot be found in the writings of previous authors, whose system has come down to us often fragmented and in a piecemeal manner.

So, to summarize: from what we can gather so far Ibn Ezra, Lilly, Morinus and Al-Biruni all accepted mutual reception without an aspect. I think this number is significant and cannot be ignored. Based on the tradition and the available information, it is safe to say that the concept of mutual reception without aspect has been an integral element of the tradition.

The alchemist wrote:So, to summarize: from what we can gather so far Ibn Ezra, Lilly, Morinus and Al-Biruni all accepted mutual reception without an aspect. I think this number is significant and cannot be ignored. Based on the tradition and the available information, it is safe to say that the concept of mutual reception without aspect has been an integral element of the tradition.

No, but I do think it helps put the lie to the idea of The Tradition(TM).

GR wrote:
No, but I do think it helps put the lie to the idea of The Tradition(TM).

Feel free to ignore the astrologers of the tradition who accepted and used the principle in your own practice, GR. But when it comes to a discussion in a public forum like this, we are all expected to provide arguments and documentation to support our ideas. Personal likes and dislikes are irrelevant.

Since we have already proved our point (i.e. that the idea of mutual reception without aspect was acceptable in traditional astrology), trying to make others accept your point of view does not help you or anyone, really.

Actually I think it's pretty clear that it what you're calling mutual reception is in fact not mutual reception according to many other astrological sources (Abu Mashar, al Qabisi, & others). There is also the point that all of your named sources, except maybe for Lilly, are rather deviant with regards to many elements of astrological practice. You might as well be using Frawley as the authoritative source of The Tradition(TM).

Morin is a reformer of astrology

There is some truth to this, but he wasn't the first to claim his way was the correct way and everyone else was wrong nor would he be the last (cf John Worsdale). He was the first to my knowledge to so openly criticize Ptolemy.

Morin is probably having more of an effect on astrology now than he did during his life. AG wasn't published until 1661, five years after his death and it was widely ignored for about 250 years. Had he lived 100 years earlier, he may have truly reformed astrology or at least had a bigger impact. His timing was lousy - not a good trait for an astrologer.

Well: I promess next time the image will be smaller;-)

it is interesting: I only found examples with 2 close houses/signs, but considering that I got with no energy all the morning and with no connection till now, the example is good enough.
if I?ll be able to find other one showing connections between the ASC and the 6th I?ll bring to you.

In the chart we have Venus in bad shape by sign and house and Mercury in its triplicity and in a cardinal position.
Venus is weak and as Mercury?s dispositor she brings the matter of ilnesses to the relationship and uses it to her benefit.
Mercury receives Venus by domicile and exaltation, he uses Venus matter to his end.

What happes with the native? She got a DST from the first fiancee: the second one is a physician and is dealing with it.

What you think?

Thanks Olivia, I found it easy to insert the chart! Sorry for the huge dimension!

BTW, Margherita, I agree with your ideas: sorry for not answering before, but It is nice to see you!

Cl?lia

GR wrote:Actually I think it's pretty clear that it what you're calling mutual reception is in fact not mutual reception according to many other astrological sources (Abu Mashar, al Qabisi, & others). There is also the point that all of your named sources, except maybe for Lilly, are rather deviant with regards to many elements of astrological practice. You might as well be using Frawley as the authoritative source of The Tradition(TM).

Gabe, all this issue began because if 2 planets receive each other without aspect ( I know it can?t be called mutual reception), in bad houses it should be problematic. I made a paralel with the mutual reception, but I know it is not the mutual reception we are accostumed to deal, which btw can be dramatic as well, as Olivia pointed out.

best

Clelia

Clelia/Tom

Tom wrote:
There is some truth to this, but he wasn't the first to claim his way was the correct way and everyone else was wrong nor would he be the last (cf John Worsdale). He was the first to my knowledge to so openly criticize Ptolemy.
Morin is probably having more of an effect on astrology now than he did during his life. AG wasn't published until 1661, five years after his death and it was widely ignored for about 250 years.

Maybe you are right, he caught the wrong moment. He was criticizing Ptolemy in a moment where the rest of astrologers were reading again Ptolemy.

In every case I have the idea that French astrology of XX century - Volguine, Barbault- is heavily based on Morin. But in effect it's just my guess, no real knowledge.

Clelia wrote: BTW, Margherita, I agree with your ideas: sorry for not answering before, but It is nice to see you!

It's nice to read you too. Just I hate this subject, I find very difficult to understand, and I would keep myself far.

margherita

In every case I have the idea that French astrology of XX century - Volguine, Barbault- is heavily based on Morin. But in effect it's just my guess, no real knowledge.

I think that's true and I think Morin's influence was greatest outside the English speaking world - France and Spain, too. My reading and knowledge is limited to those who wrote in English and to works translated into English.

GR wrote:Actually I think it's pretty clear that it what you're calling mutual reception is in fact not mutual reception according to many other astrological sources (Abu Mashar, al Qabisi, & others). There is also the point that all of your named sources, except maybe for Lilly, are rather deviant with regards to many elements of astrological practice. You might as well be using Frawley as the authoritative source of The Tradition(TM).

I am familiar with the work of Abu Mashar and his ideas on reception. What you call The Tradition (TM) is not a single, unitary thing that developed once and remained static. Everyone knows that. Everyone also knows that different authors have very different ideas on many different aspects of the tradition.

Furthermore, our knowledge of the tradition is only incomplete. Very incomplete. So for one to claim that they know it all as regards the astrological tradition of centuries, based on a few extant texts, is irrational to say the least.

Having said that, I do not need Abu Mashar or Lilly to tell me that the principle works. It's pretty obvious that it does.