I was just wondering would Mars in Pisces and Neptune in Scorpio be in mutual reception? Ie can you mix the traditional rulers and the modern rulers? I am asking this on a general level, but am I right anyway in thinking that in using the Lilly point scoring table of dignities Mars would not be considered in mutual reception as Neptune is Modern?

Thanks

Marilu

Yes you are right in thinking that, Marilu. In the context of traditional astrology the outer planets do not rule signs, so they cannot form mutual receptions.

Tara

Tara wrote:Yes you are right in thinking that, Marilu. In the context of traditional astrology the outer planets do not rule signs, so they cannot form mutual receptions.

Tara

Thanks for answering Tara. If you use modern rulers in natal astrology can you then mix it with the traditional rulers as in this example or would you have mutual reception only if the modern rulers were in mutual reception?

Marilu

I feel the assignation of the outer planets to "Higher Octave Rulerships' of the signs to be valid.
The problem is where do they truly apply.
My Astrolger friend [and cousin] Dave Mastry thinks that the Asteroids were once a planet and should be accounted for in this process. This disrupts all applications beyond the orbit of Mars. He has a thread or two over at the Astrodienst web forum on this.
I like his theories, they make more sense than what's presently accepted on this subject.
He feels that the 'Outer Planets' should only correspond to their respective lower octave planets.
For example; Uranus [the 'Higher Octave' of Mercury] should be the "Higer Octave" ruler of Virgo and Gemini. Neptune [the 'Higher Octave' of Venus] the "Higher Octave" ruler of Libra and Taurus.
Ther is an ancient and most esoteric and occult source that Daves' mentor in Astrology, his younger brother Daniel, quoted to us some years back. [I can't recall the source Daniel quoted though] "...That Lucifer [The Fallen Angel] shattered this Planet, [that is now known as the Asteroids] to confuse Mankinds psyche."
Daniel is an extremely intelligent man whom got bored with Astrology [or felt he could not take the knowledge any further]. Daniel is now attending the University of Western New Mexico earning his Doctorate, I believe. Daniel holds a B.S. in Organic Chemistry, A B.S. in Computer Science and a Masters in Teaching.

If you use modern rulers in natal astrology can you then mix it with the traditional rulers as in this example or would you have mutual reception only if the modern rulers were in mutual reception?

Hi Marilu,
Many modern astrologers do consider the trans-Saturnian planets to rule signs so I guess these astrologers would consider, for instance, that transiting Uranus and Neptune are currently in mutual reception. It's an individual decision whether you consider the outer planets to have any rulership over signs or not. Even some well-known horary astrologers (Geoffrey Cornelius, eg) use Uranus, Neptune and Pluto as "co-rulers" of Aquarius, Pisces and Scorpio in their work.

It would feel too much like mixing apples and oranges, however, to say that Uranus in Pisces could form a mutual reception with Jupiter in Aquarius in my opinion.

Skippy Sanchez wrote:

Daniel is an extremely intelligent man whom got bored with Astrology [or felt he could not take the knowledge any further].

What's the implication, Skippy? That if the rest of us were as intelligent we'd be bored with astrology too?

Tara

Tara, I didn't mean to imply that anyone here was any more or less intelligent.
It's just that Daniel mentored us both somewhat and although he is not a recognized astrologer I feel his understanding to be of a pretty sound basis. I meant to state that Daniel is an intelligent man, but for some reason doesn't pursue the study with the passion he once had. That may have changed by now. I haven't been in contact with him for a few years now. He is extremely busy.
Daniels view on life tends to run more 'Shamanistic' than his brothers or my view, which most people that know us do consider 'spiritual' as opposed to 'Shamanistic'...and not that those two views are mutually exclusive either.
I and his brother have been involvved with Yoga and Vedic knowledge the better parts of our lives.
I may have implied that a 'Vedic/Yogic Science' view led to more understanding though. In fact I think I have and will stand by that, at least for now barring anyone elses views that will provide a better explanation to me.
I am a Taurus though and somewhat stubborn, I'll admit. But I will listen to all theories and will and have changed or adjusted my own views when presented with a more reasonable/plausable theory or argument.

I think the biggest problem with assigning signs and rulerships to the outer planets is, that the influence of such hasn't really been studied to see what really applies where.

I see Uranus as chaotic, but unlike many I apply GASes to Uranus and Not Neptune. I do not see Uranus as ruling Aquarius. If I had to assign it a sign I'd probably suggest Gemini.

People Apply Neptune to Pisces, if I were going ot apply neptune to a sign it would be Scorpio (but I wouldn't because it is too generational to be a sign ruler in my mind) and Pluto to Pisces - Pisces is the end of the zodiac and considered an underworld sign, also Pluto is considered the underworld god. Scorpio is aligned with the kind of self indulgence that leads to addiction and neptune to drug abuse. if you go with definitions like that then the alleged rulerships that were arbitrarily assigned the two outer planets are ludicrous. they dont fit.

take them out of sign rulership and apply to them some simple ideas and things start to make a bit more sense (well in my mind anyway ) for instance

Uranus - chaos, unpredictability,
Neptune - illusion, idealism
Pluto - Change or death and regeneration, tearing down rebuilding

I think it also helps to read a chart with that in mind, but I do realize not everyone uses or believes to be correct the same type of astrology practices. Just as not everyone likes the same diet.

just thought I'd insert some traditional thought in here. Try reading a chart with each method and see what gives you the clearest information.

Granny

Well this is all definitely been interesting for me. Think in looking at my own experience of outer planets I definitely can identify with your energy descriptions Granny. The best example is probably my Neptune square Saturn - when I had Neptune square natal Neptune it came out in a very messy way that my father had another child we didn't know about. I had had a have suspicion from when I was a child. This disclosure involved first an alcohol induced part revelation by my father, followed by a fruitless attempt of clearing it up on mine and my sister's part with public records then very weirdly a few weeks later the actual half brother turned up at my parents house so it all was forced into the open then. I definitely had had a rather idealized image of my father before then.

Try reading a chart with each method and see what gives you the clearest information.

I can't really relate that transit to anything to do with my 6th house cusp though - which is in Pisces - will check transits to other outer planets. I can relate my own 5th house cusp in Aquarius more to my Saturn placement than my Uranus so ..yes will look into this more.

Marilu

As far as I know, in modern astrology Scorpio is said to be ruled by Pluto, not by Mars. There is no place for the outer planets in the traditional thinking, hence no Neptune, no Uranus, no Pluto (and no asteroids or quincunx-chirons, neither). The moderns furthermore have no accurate concept of receptions and dignities. Don't mix it up! You have to keep strictly to the traditional rules if you want working astrology.

So no, your example can't be regarded as a mutual reception by domicile. Mars in Pisces and Jupiter in Scorpio would be one.

Mutual reception operates within the principle and the concept of Essential Dignity which is based on astrolonomical, philosophical and historical observations of the seven visible planets. Using the technique on the outer planest, astroids and fixed stars are irrelevant as they are outside this framework and have no house rulership as Tara pointed out. It's not a good idea to mix it all up as Edward said.