Hi PallasAthene,

there is no need at all to aplolgize. I don't take offence at all. You are right to ask and I can understand very well, that your are seeking for the 'right' understanding of receptions.

It is always a problem with examples because they illustrate to a certain extent very well, but at some point they don't help any longer, they are overexpanded.

So if you are in your own house you can receive whomever you want to. When you are in a house belonging to your ennemy it is not probable that you would receive someone, isn't it? But if you are in the house of your ennemy and have lent a flat there, then of course you can receive somenone in your flat. So a planet in its detriment or fall cannot receive another planet there. But if the receiving planet is at the same time in one of its dignities as triplicity, term, face he has power over this space and can receive other planets.

A small part of reception is to have power. But power according to reception is connected to a place where you have or the planet has it really. If you have no own place, you cannot receive others. Thus the tradition defines reception only as a planet (a) receiving another (b) in one of its (a) dignities.

Mutual reception occurs more often as you seem to suppose. And don't forget that not all questions are affirmed by a YES.

Indeed for me it doesn't matter at all nor effects anything, when the significators are in each others debilities and are not otherwise connected.

If I should have offended you in any way I should apologize. My only intent is to discuss the subjects. That is not easy for me as a non native speaker and I can imagine that sometimes the sound is not so polite as it should be. But is never meant unpolite.

Johannes

GR wrote: Turning and re-turning houses is a quick way to madness.

Those wishing to engage in perversity can take the 9th from the 3rd, the sign of Leo, and make the Sun lord of the quesited, but my degeneracy only goes so far.

. Let's see what Johannes and others say.

Gabe, I'm sure you can understand my inclination not to follow your invitation and to double your experiences seen above with the pseudo-chart. Moreover I'm excused at all by Regiomontanus and his - in this context - strange or lost house cusps.

But without irony it's really impressive what you judged by this torso chart!

Johannes

In Ben Dykes' translation of Sahl, there is an example which is a bit different, but I think it wouldn't be a stretch to apply it here.

Sahl actually calls this "not reception". His example shows (page 33) the Moon in Aries and Saturn in Gemini. He writes:

"... if the Moon (or lord of the ascendant) where joined to a planet, in its descension (fall): she will be like one who goes from the house of its own enemies: and he does not receive or esteem her."

In this example whatever Saturn represents sees the Moon as its enemy. If two planets are in each other's detriment or fall, then I'd guess each are acting to each other's detriment. So while what you are talking about may not fit the textbook case of mutual reception, it's still a condition worth considering.

PallasAthene wrote: So you are saying that mutual reception by detriment or fall doesn't exist?
Great! All my lovers are really into me after all : )

it seems like a mutual..something.. that should be noted. Because it is mutual, complimentary, an exact crossed over pairing. As you can see I'm struggling to get my point across.

It is "something"- and probably offering more informations about the situation and the outcome BUT if we use beneficial mutual reception (mutable "likeability" ) as an element that supports the positive outcome (willingness to unite, mutual "appreciation", co-operation, etc.) than it seems pretty "obvious" as to what the opposite situation might mean. That said- I think Johannes has given a good example:

But you cannot receive someone in a house that doesn't belong to you, where you are strange.

Now, while I generally think that "receiving" is a positive word and that there's a reason why "mutual reception" is called the way it is as we need the rulers to "want/receive each other" (and to have the power to bring their wishes to realisation, of course), I actually don't think that Frawley's idea to name something "reception by detriment" sounds odd - basically, you're right- it does mean "mutual something". But what? While I don't find the term itslef to be extremely odd, I see no good promise in it. Quite the contrary! Mutual non- cooperation, mutual non-likeability....; because the nature of that "something" that the two planets share (or have got in common) is still the same- they share the placement in each other's detrimental positions! So, yes, there's something in common in regard to their "approach" to each other but, to me- it does not look like a positive mutual "feeling". Having something in common does not mean that the planets (or people for that matter)can actually work together - as it just might be repulsiveness for each other or non-willingess to unite that they share!

So should we call it rejection in this case ?

Certainly one of the first things that comes to my mind!
I may be completely wrong but, in a such situation, I believe that my first impression would be that neither of the two (planets) are actually interested in cooperating with each other.

OK.. do you mean that for reception to occur, the planets must behold each other.. and with debility this is impossible?

Well, if it's the aspects that can bring the matter to pass(e)- then, with no aspect between the main significators (or TOL or COL) we don't really have perfection, do we?! I'm not sure if I actually understand the question well but, generally speaking- the planets can be placed inside the houses/signs that do not behold each other even without being in each other's detriment - somtimes even when they receive each other in the signs of their rulership. Take the Moon in Leo and Sun in Cancer as an example, or Mars in Sagittarius and Jupiter in Scorpio- the planets separated 30 degrees from each other do not behold each other as they cannot perform any of the major Ptolemaic aspects from the signs they're currently in (not even a platic aspect) so, unless there's another planet that can translate or collect their light- we do not have perfection (though, some would argue that the reception itself is enough)and, yet, the planets are not either detrimental or in the signs of each other's detriment, quite the oposite- they receive each other (dizzy! in terms of dignities but we have no aspect. Similarly- a stressful aspect and a lack of reception between the main rulers is not something we hope to see in a chart! But, two detrimental planets not aspecting each other and two planets aspecting each other only with no mutual reception (or any other version that you can think of)- will always reveal something important for the specific situation!

I would like to write more about it, but I am really out of the door and going overseas right now....

Just a few points, when we ask what is reception, we should what is receiving what? The concept, I believe, can be understood with the concepts of hospitality and politeness.

A planet in a sign is received by the ruler of the sign as a host receives a guest.
Let?s be clear, for instance, let?s imagine moon in aries.

Moon is disposed by mars
Mars is the dispositor of the moon.
Moon is being received by mars (if there is an aspect)
Mars receives the moon (if there is an aspect).

Or, in another words, moon is the guest, mars is the host, so mars receives the moon is his home (aries).

Mars, as a guest, has duties or obligations determined by the rules of hospitality. He has to provide for his guest, usually at his own unconvenience.

The guest, which receives hospitality, is expected to be polite and to respect the rules of the house master. As if you are going to a japanese house, you will take your shoes to show respect. If a japanese guest is coming to your house, they will probably keep their shoes, because it is the rule of the house.

Several rules say that when there are afflictions (retrogradation, combustion,detriment, etc) there is no reception. I would say that there is reception, but not the good one.

As a practical example, my mother usually receives guests from other countries, who are friends with my brother. Some are very nice, some have stole her things! Some authors imply that all reception is good, but I am not sure of that.

Sahl implies that a planet that comes from a planet fall (moon in aries applying to saturn, moon in libra applying to sun, etc) are rejected because they "come from the house of its enemies". But he don?t mention detriment, so it?s anyone?s guesses.

When two planets exchange signs, but have no aspect, the usual term would be "generosity" and not mutual reception.

Does the Frawley theory of reception by detriment works? I would like to wrote more about, but in short, I would say no. I have some horaries, where, for instance, querent is in the sign of detriment of the job, and querent was keen to the job, and really didn?t know that much about it to hate it in the first place. Also other examples like "will I get the money" and querent hates the money, etc.

So I gave up on his technique.

Only a short annotation:

yuzuru wrote:ILet?s be clear, for instance, let?s imagine moon in aries.

Moon is disposed by mars
Mars is the dispositor of the moon.
Moon is being received by mars (if there is an aspect)
Mars receives the moon (if there is an aspect).

Several rules say that when there are afflictions (retrogradation, combustion,detriment, etc) there is no reception. I would say that there is reception, but not the good one.

When two planets exchange signs, but have no aspect, the usual term would be "generosity" and not mutual reception.

The need of an aspect in reception is abandoned at the latest by Lilly and Morin.

Johannes

yuzuru wrote:When two planets exchange signs, but have no aspect, the usual term would be "generosity" and not mutual reception.

I'm glad you brought this up, That was the word I was searching for in my last post!
I must say- it can't make any more sense to me than this! If we consider the mutual "reception" by detriment to be a beneficial factor, we're (IMO) disregarding the true nature of the detrimental position- and a planet is there for a reason, or, it being placed there has got its consequences!
It goes beyond just Horary questions, of course!
But, just as an example- what do we do or how do/would we read the placement of one of the significators in the detriment of the other in a, say, relationship question- we judge mutual affection by examining the mutual reception (generosity towards each other)! If we can only find it on one of the relevant sides , we'll most probably assume that the other party does not reciprocate the feelings, or that it is not as ardent. If one of the planets were to be found in the sign of detriment of the other party's ruler, we'd surely use that placement as descriptive of the situation and it wouldn't consider it to be a good sign, would we?

In order to be able to conclude that two planets have the necessary strength or power to act and to unite, we want to see them dignified and in mutual reception, right? If they're not in any of their own essential dignities- they're peregrine and, thus- weak. If, of course, they are essentially dignified, we then want to see them well received by the other party's ruler and vice versa! If they're not receiving each other- we could examine the nature of the aspect and their strength in the sign/house they occupy and according to it determine whether they'll be able to overcome the lack of mutual reception. But what happens when we find one of the planets inside the detriment of the other? We don't just dismiss it, do we? It looks worse than just "not being received" by the other party's ruler! If the lack of reception on ocasions indicates the lack of interest; one of the planets being placed inside the other one's detriment indeed does look like there is a feeling or specific perception involved- but not a good one. One of the parties has noticed the other one- but he/she does not really like him/her!
Am I oversimplyifing things?!

Why would we want to use mutual reception by detriment as a good sign when both planets are actually "rejecting" each other and why would we consider it to be a sign of the planets playing for the same team? It just doesn't make sense to me!
It reminds me of two armies ready to enter a war with each other! They do have something in common- the dislike for each other and the willingness to see each other on a battlefield- only fighting against each other; the fact that they share the same wish or even intentions (war!) does not put them under the same flag! Quite the opposite!

In a practical example, using mutual reception by detriment as a positive sign, would,to my understanding , result in situations such as this one:

A Querent wants to know if she and the man she likes would fall in love and eventually be together! We see their rulers occupying the signs of each others detriment and we say- Great, you hate him as much as he hates you- that's more than good!!!; or,Oh, lovely, you don't like him, he doesn't like you- it's a great promise!

It's the dislike for each other that they share- not the generosity for each other!
Using the "guests in some one's house" example- that would mean that the guest is staying in the room where the lord has got no powers whatsoever. The lord himself does not like being there.

If, in cases where only one of the rulers is well received by the ruler of the other party (the Querent likes the job but the bosses will not like him; the woman is in love with the man but he does not care for her etc.) we use the lack of reception on one of the sides as a potential indicator of a "one-way interest"/dead-road situation , then, why should a situation where both of the rulers are placed inside the signs where the other one feels worst be treated differently ! To me, it simply looks like a mutual dislike if not aversion! And, if one-way reception indicates an impulse to act and unite only on one side whilst the lack of such evidences on the other side denotes that the other party is not willing to enter the game- in a situation from PallasAthene's example- it should simply me mean that none of the parties is willing to enter the game!

A one-way reception (with aspect, not just a generosity) can bring about a positive outcome. Remember, in classical, perfect reception is either by rulership, exaltation, or two of the minor dignities. Mutual reception occurs when both planets are in that state, but reception only requires one of them to be.

A good aspect without reception can do the same.

What you wouldn't want to see, though, is a planet in aspect to another planet in the first planet's debility, e.g., Venus trine Mars in Virgo, or Sun sextile Moon in Libra.

Sahl, Lilly, and I think Bonatti as well all wrote about that. Two planets both in each other's debility wouldn't be any better.

And ideally we'd like both planets to have a bit of dignity of their own.

Olivia wrote:A one-way reception (with aspect, not just a generosity) can bring about a positive outcome.

But, wouldn't you agree that a situation where the reception lacks on one side is not the same as when the ruler of one of the parties actually rejects the other ruler (or when they both do it as in the example from this topic)?

That's what I meant about how you don't want a planet aspecting another planet in the first planet's debility - like Venus sextile to Mars in Virgo, because Venus is in fall in Virgo.

Yes - it makes a big difference! And not for the good.

Olivia wrote:That's what I meant about how you don't want a planet aspecting another planet in the first planet's debility - like Venus sextile to Mars in Virgo, because Venus is in fall in Virgo.

Yes - it makes a big difference! And not for the good.

This is the first time I see your line starting with "What you wouldn't want to see... " (dyslexia )!

Yes, I thought so, I was just interested in how you'd examine such a placement as I tried following my logic rather than any specific source! Indeed, not for good! Thanks, O (for writing your answers twice!!

PallasAthene wrote: Since Frawley appears to be questionable, could you recommend another modern writer to a beginner? I have his Sports Astrology book so maybe I picked up this idea there. But for any questioning mind, wouldn't this relationship cause pause for thought?

To adjust this a little: Frawley is not questionable in all, but only concerning some of his teachings and especially those concerning 'receptions' and 'reception in debilities' . . .

As to Sports Astrology: Frawley himself is warning to mix his teachings in his 'Sports Astrology' and those given in 'The Horary Textbook'!

Johannes