Tom, the simple answer is that they are all different and have different effects.

If that's true, we should be able to point to a chart and say something like this: If Mars only disposits Jupiter, this happens, but if Mars disposits with an aspect (reception) something different happens, and if they are in mutual reception something different from the other two happens. I don't know if I can accept that. The mutual reception - yes, but not the other two. How do we quantify something like that?

Hello,

Tom:

If that's true, we should be able to point to a chart and say something like this: If Mars only disposits Jupiter, this happens, but if Mars disposits with an aspect (reception) something different happens, and if they are in mutual reception something different from the other two happens.

Different astronomical configurations should give different astrological configurations. They might give similar overall delineation but they should still give different specific outcomes. So, yes - they should give different outcomes. The fact that we can't find it requires more reseacrh and case studies to prove this or the contrary.

How do we quantify something like that?

We don't. These concepts are different in terms of qualification and not quantification.

Alchemist:

I totally agree with you. After this, it is only an issue of interpreting the combined influences and their effect on the affairs of the native.

It is necessary to identify the subtle different influences before we can start combining them.

It is necessary to identify the subtle different influences before we can start combining them.

If we can't identify the differences, how do we know they exist?

Hello,

If we can't identify the differences, how do we know they exist?

The astronomical configurations have already been identified. The astrological interpretations have been suggested by the authors and editors of the sources cited. The question is not about their existence. The question is about the efficacy of the suggestions given by the authors and editors.

Thanks again, astrojin for bringing up these concepts. I have been eager to learn more - I think I need to just get Benjamin Dyke's book? I do understand what you're saying, but I think the subtle differences will be hard to notice without more study... I actually could use these subtleties in reading horaries, though! I am greatly interested in all of this.

BTW do you have many short term relationships?

Venus in detriment was the main thing I wondered with the "pushing" concept that was mentioned by others earlier because some astrologers seemed to believe that Mars could help somehow (with her condition), but I was rather skeptical based on my own experience. I have only had one relationship and it was several yrs. I am practically a saint! I have never been the dating type, actually - I have only ever dated someone I was already in love with. It is in my 10th, though, so it influences my career somehow - not really sure how other than romance getting mixed up in the work place (Mars also rules my 5th). I have been in love with two people in my life, and both were coworkers. One I actually dated. I have had many jobs, though and jobs are very short in duration - Mars' fiery nature cuts things short (it's also a day chart with Mars oriental, and he's my lord of geniture). I have always been very well respected in my career and I work in government (but I have a Pisces MC with Jupiter in Leo - I think this is more so Jupiter). I am also a self-starter and tend to make people want to better themselves (I guess I motivate people around me in general).

The theory by one astrologer was that Mars forces Venus to face romance, hence falling in love with coworkers. I would normally not fall in love with anyone, unless being around them 8 hrs a day at work, perhaps. As I said, I am not very good at romance and I don't normally think of it much or seek it out. But anyway - I am just trying to be a case study here!

Hello,

To Tanit:

Could you supply me the details of your chart? I also have Venus in Aries but with trine aspect to Mars (not conjunction like yours) and my Venus is in the fifth! (Mars in the first). Do I have many relationships? I had none (I am a 42 year old virgin!).

Maybe I could have a look at your chart and delienate that part? It is interesting to see charts of people who have extreme life (if you know what I mean) e.g. old virgin like me or someone who has 120 relationships at the age 18, etc. These "extreme" charts are good for case studies.

Abu Ma'shar probably meant that these concepts be used in horary but then by his time we could see a lot of crossover between horary and natal concepts and techniques.

Concerning the concept of pushing: I don't understand how it's relevant to the reception issue. Pushing is the law of gravity applied to astrology and interpreted in astrologically meaningful terms, is it not? Lilly mentions this principle several times in CA (the slower planet, the more ponderous planet etc.)

Reception is about two planets being in each other's house and how this affects each other and brings the affairs of each planet and the houses they rule, together.

The Alchemist wrote:Pushing is the law of gravity applied to astrology and interpreted in astrologically meaningful terms, is it not?

This seems improbable to me. Newton?s theories on gravitation in astronomy weren?t known until end 17th century and imply different planetary motions than the ?pushing? described here. Most classical and medieval people wouldn't even accept that the planets are physical objects made of gases, liquid, and or rock, which is required for any notion of gravitation.

Pushing is the law of gravity applied to astrology and interpreted in astrologically meaningful terms, is it not?

No, it is not. In fact, not even remotely related to the subject, and I am a little confused where you are taking this from. There are lot of quotes in this thread which clearly are not gravity related, and quotes important authors relevant to the matter. Please, refer to the post of astrojin in special.

Now, people who don?t care/don?t trust/ don?t believe in reception/have other definition already had their chance to say their minds, so I would suggest that the discussion can be returned to its original thread, that was way more interesting. People who want to discuss other related topics can always open other threads.

Hello,

Yuzuru is right in saying that the concept of "pushing" mentioned by the cited authors has nothing to do with gravity. In my earlier post, I did not use that term (and btw, gravity only pulls, it does not push!). When a planet pushes another planet (pushes nature, power/strength/virtue or counsel/management), it is pushing something to the other planet like a man who "pushes" his agenda to another.

I really do not wish this thread to be like other threads which discusses the different versions of reception and their delineations (we have done this before in earlier posts). It is just that when Clelia discusses the concept of mutual generosity (Ibn Ezra's version), I wanted to draw the attention of her and other members on the difference of reception and pushing as outlined by Abu Ma'shar (whose texts have been referred to by many astrologers after him). I have long suspected this (and have used in chart readings) when I first got my hand on Brill's translation of the Abbreviation. When I got Ben Dykes translation of the Abbreviation, he also translated excerpts from the Greater Introduction which confirms my suspicion.

So, I just wanted to say that when two planets are in mutual generosity (Ibn Ezra's version), there is no pushing (as there is no aspect) and there is no reception unless the two planets are in the signs that share the same domicile (like engirding), in the signs of equal day (antiscion) or in the signs of equal rising (contrascion) - using Abu Ma'shar's concept of what he calls weaker version of reception. Abu Ma'shar has different definitions for generosity (which I did not mention in my posts).

Well, I want to kill myself: I simply miss all your important posts! I don?t know what is happening with my mail.

Now I read them all ( well, more or less) and I agree specially with Tom.

I don?t know if I got him in the right way but I was not talking about pushing nature and all the conditions the Medieval authors used and Astrogin brought to the discussion. Neither I was thinking in " pushing nature"

The house?s dispositor has a direct final responsibility for the affairs of the house it rules.
So, if the house it rules is connected to it by mutual rulership it happens a situation in the chart which is closed and gives no escape, at least to the point when there is no other planet configured to the couple.

I think that this couple receives each other even without aspect because the bound between them is deep i.e. the rulership of one over the over.

Iit can bring a kind of stagnation, since the 2 signs are trapped in a box, closed in a box.( especially if none of them have other ruler)

The ?x ?of the question is if if it happens in houses that are profitable or not. For example if the ruler of the 4th and 5ht receved each other never mind if they do not see each ohter, properties, etc, and children, fun and money of propertes are linked
I?m thrilled with this issue is and I?m frustratefpr not having follow the discussions.

All appears to do with the houses: planets in good house receiving each other is good, in bad house is bad. The good celestial condition of a planet in a bad house can work badly, also. Now the eggs!!! I?m ready!LOL,

Astrogin thanks for quoting the authors: I want to discuss later something about your quotes. And sorry Olivia for not having answer your post.
I?ll read all of them with attention and see if I have something more to point out. I was needing so badly to discuss this matter!


best regards

Clelia

Olivia:

But I still don't see half the mess without aspect as I do with aspect. It could be that I haven't paid enough attention to it, but...

Yes, Olivia: when the planet is in aspect it is much stronger for best or worse.

I felt very unconfortable with my question, because I?m coming to see that must of traditional statements must be revisited.

Another example is about malefics being less dangerrous in 12th adn 6th.
I?ll tell you: Saturn in the 12th is horrible.
Zoller said once that Saturn in the 12th iis good for him:this sounds weird, since the human perspective is all that counts!
But if we think that planets in traditional astrology are " beings" we can understand that being ggod to Saturn is bad to the native. It?s funny;-)


But, again, it is a matter tho think a LOT about!

best

Clelia