Maybe in the rest of the article which she did not post, she used them the way I did in my above post? Sun in the rulership sign of the main significator of the querent Mercury=interest by the quesited in querent. You think she'd do that?

I read the article many years ago and, no, she did not use them that way. You look only at the relationship between the Sun and Venus. Some people do use them as co sigs - whatever works for you. I personally have not used them that way and do not find it to be accurate to try to use them that way. It really isn't meant to be a focal point of a chart and should help support other information of who is the fonder or if both are fond. Who is chasing whom, etc. Is the relationship traditional for gender roles. That kind of thing. For example, a fire Venus oriental would suggest an aggressive female (or at least unconventional or possibly very sexual), whereas a water Venus occidental is more traditional for a female gender role.

Ok. So both of you don't use it generally. How will you interpret a chart in cases like this?
Jupiter and Mercury in each others detriment. You take it as the querent and quesited have no interest in each other?
Depending on which sign the Moon is, Moon could be translating the light. But I want to know about receptions. And also what if Moon or any other planet is not connecting them in any way by either translation or collection of light.

You said some people do use it as co significators. You mean like co significator applying to main significator=perfection. Right? In such cases is Sun/Venus the man/woman sexual side or just co significator?

Thanks.

I don't use them as co-sigs but I still look at the relationship between Sun and Venus descriptively if I read a romance chart for someone.

Is there a chart or is this hypothetical? I am sorry, I don't have time (I am on a break at work) to look through the thread in detail and don't see any charts posted. You would look first at the type of aspect between significators and the Moon and quesited. When someone approaches from their own dignity but without any dignity for another party it suggests approaching the matter with self interest in mind but the planet itself will generally behave well (of the nature of that planet anyway) because it is essentially dignified. I would not assume dislike based on lack of reception. Aspect is what describes like or dislike best, according to Deb. Reception and essential dignity describe the quality of the aspect and whether it is good or not and what both parties bring to the aspect. A square with reception overcomes the difficulty of the square based on the quality of the aspect being better.

Two essentially dignified planets probably don't really need reception except in difficult aspects because essential dignity often shows interest in the matter itself and essential dignity shows strength in the aspect. Traditional authors will often say "dignified or received" regarding a good influence, meaning the planet is positive when dignified or is received by a dignified planet. Reception helps but is more so necessary when there is difficulty, such as a square aspect. I would be more worried of a planet lacking essential dignity than one that has it but approaches from the other's detriment. Your question sounds like a hard aspect though, which I think is probably more important than lack of reception, or reception in this case would be necessary for perfection.

Authors like Frawley certainly focus on reception for like versus dislike but that is a modern usage and something someone can apply but may or may not be reliable. There are a lot of threads on reception.

Thanks Tanit.

There is a chart but I didn't post it because I didn't want to request a reading. I wanted to discuss this more generally so I can apply what I learn to other charts too.

Aspect is what describes like or dislike best, according to Deb.

This is something new I learned today.
I always saw reception as interest b/w two people and the aspect as their interaction. Like if the planets were in mutual reception or in the others sign(rulership, exaltation or triplicity), I saw that as interest, and an aspect between them is what that connected them together.

When someone approaches from their own dignity but without any dignity for another party it suggests approaching the matter with self interest in mind but the planet itself will generally behave well (of the nature of that planet anyway) because it is essentially dignified. I would not assume dislike based on lack of reception.

I thought they were in each others detriment, so they disliked each other, which did not make sense because they are a couple. I didn't consider this. Yes they are self-centered and this makes sense. Mercury is combust though, so it's not really behaving in a dignified way. In my chart I think Mercury the querent is insecure. This definition makes sense now.

I thought if I take Sun as co sig, then Mercury being combust showed interest, which is also true.
And I also thought, it's quite normal for a couple to hate certain things about their partner and still be in love, hence the main significators in each others detriment.

Two essentially dignified planets probably don't really need reception except in difficult aspects because essential dignity often shows interest in the matter itself and essential dignity shows strength in the aspect. Traditional authors will often say "dignified or received" regarding a good influence, meaning the planet is positive when dignified or is received by a dignified planet. Reception helps but is more so necessary when there is difficulty, such as a square aspect. I would be more worried of a planet lacking essential dignity than one that has it but approaches from the other's detriment. Your question sounds like a hard aspect though, which I think is probably more important than lack of reception, or reception in this case would be necessary for perfection.

Yes the main significators are in square aspect to each other. So if I had to use aspect to interpret like and dislike, then does it mean they don't like each other, but they will act with dignity because they are essentially dignified?

There are different techniques that modern astrologers use, such as reception (or I guess a sort of anti reception) showing like or dislike. It is a matter of what the astrologer thinks works best for them. There is an old thread where Deb talks about aspect showing like versus dislike and I couldn't find if via Google so it would take some digging. Reception does help further describe the aspect though and an application where one planet does not carry influence that the other planet would receive suggests some selfishness or possibly that there is a lack of understanding. Still, the aspect is what is most important for showing interest, according to Deb.

A square aspect suggests difficulty and friction. In a romance horary with Mercury and Jupiter in their own sign, I would assume there is interest by both parties but there is lack of common ground between them, and possibly discord. Mercury and Jupiter on an energy level get on pretty easy though because Mercury would take on the planetary nature of Jupiter by being in aspect with it and they are naturally fairly friendly with one another. Mercury takes on the nature of the planets it aspects (unless it were translating the light of a malefic to Jupiter, then that might emphasize more difficulty and that Mercury brings some negativity to Jupiter). If Mercury separates from a good planet and gives that light to Jupiter, then I would especially think the square was not so bad as well. I wouldn't see it as the most romantic influence but there is potential for a relationship with work and effort, probably especially for the Mercury person, as the one applying to Jupiter.

Lack of aspect to me more so shows lack of interest and oppositions often show disagreements/arguments or hatred. A square can show dislike but in this case I would say it depends a lot on the planets involved too. Bonatti said squares can lead to perfection with reception, so it can show mutual like with reception (and I would say probably too if both planets are dignified and strong). A square between Moon and Saturn and probably Sun with Saturn can emphasize rejection due to the planetary nature of Saturn in that aspect. To me it also depends on the nature of the planets and how they relate to other planets. The lights with Saturn in hard aspect to me emphasize pain and extreme difficulty because the lights represent potential and life whereas Saturn represents some restriction, pain and loss (or disappointment) on a basic level. In that case, you would definitely want Saturn receiving the light and not the light receiving Saturn (in cases where the light is very strong on its own it might overcome the difficulty but it still would be problematic). A square between Mercury and Jupiter where both are peregrine or detriment/fall would probably not emphasize much interest or intent, or would show dysfunctional intent that leads to mutual disappointment. A square between Venus and Mars would definitely not show lack of interest due to their planetary nature, but it is a hard aspect and would suggest discord even if there is a strong attraction (and essential dignity and reception would help make this easier). It is said that Mars is only friends with Venus in general so Mars tends to like Venus in general and they are a fairly romantic influence in a chart. I would even say an opp might suggest interest but there is obviously serious problems.

To me, it is a big picture issue and you cannot isolate one thing, such as a square aspect and apply it to all scenarios. A square aspect with Saturn is obviously more difficult than one with Jupiter. It depends on the aspect, the strength and planetary nature of the planets involved, how they relate to one another and reception (and house placement), as well as other bodies involved. In general, Deb would say a sextile and trine are easy and suggest "like" though for both people and the one applying can generally be the more ardent (with reception from the applied to suggesting more mutual like). Hopefully that helps. The main idea I got from her is to look at the aspect first and foremost and the rest helps describe the interaction of that aspect. Unfortunately, a trine where both parties are afflicted is not going to be so fantastic and could hinder the matter. Obviously, a trine with prohibition could lead to nothing.

Here is one quote from Deb I found that relates to what I said about aspects being most important but I have a visual memory and this is not the specific thread I had in mind (still appropriate though). If I find the thread where she talks specifically about "like" I will post it though.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 1dd3250c1a

... Lilly's use of mutual reception without an aspect is quite complex. It doesn't seem to be anywhere near as straightforward as that introductory comment suggests. This is a point that I demonstrate at length in my course but it's hard to wrap it up in a nutshell. I'll try to do that here by saying that Lilly, like all other authors, recognises reception as something which describes the influence of an aspect. Nothing can happen without a relevant point of contact , but what you might get is the enhanced prospect of perfection when two significators are in this state of 'generosity' towards each other, combined with some other way that contact is provided between them.

An example is in the chart published in Christian Astrology on p.385: "A lady, if marry the gentleman desired?" Here Jupiter is a collecting planet for the two significators (Sun and Saturn). The Moon is not in aspect to Jupiter but it is in mutual reception by sign (Jupiter is in Cancer/Moon in Sagittarius) and itself applying to the asc-ruler. So by taking the Moon as a co-significtor for the querent's interests, and seeing Jupiter sympathetic to those interests, he more strongly recommended Jupiter as someone who would help overcome the difficulties of the chart. But this indication of natural inclination could only be used because both of the main significators were directly in contact with Jupiter. Without a point of contact to show that it can be used, there is just the sense of "I would help if I could".

Thanks for taking the time to explain that, Tanit. This method is new to me and it will take me a bit of time to understand and apply that in my charts. I had learned it the other way around.