Mutual Reception Valid?

[Rebel Uranian]

Saturn in Aries, Venus in Capricorn, Mars in Libra. Two of the planets are debilitated. However, if you switch them between the signs trying to give them the same dignity or debility (there is mutual reception by debility, although it is not commonly mentioned, from what I understand) the only time they will all have the same dignity is when they are all in domicile. Two planets in opposition will not be in reception because they already have the same dignity and take the path of least resistance (astrology is all about paths of least resistance) and not receive anything. Of course, to be logical there will be some sort of reception, but it is not quite as strong. But 3 planets in mutual reception with two squares and one opposition is tricky. There is no mutual opposition. Or is this a legit idea at all? It might not be...

[JUPITERASC]

Saturn in Aries, Venus in Capricorn, Mars in Libra. Two of the planets are debilitated. However, if you switch them between the signs trying to give them the same dignity or debility (there is mutual reception by debility, although it is not commonly mentioned, from what I understand) the only time they will all have the same dignity is when they are all in domicile. Two planets in opposition will not be in reception because they already have the same dignity and take the path of least resistance (astrology is all about paths of least resistance) and not receive anything. Of course, to be logical there will be some sort of reception, but it is not quite as strong. But 3 planets in mutual reception with two squares and one opposition is tricky. There is no mutual opposition. Or is this a legit idea at all? It might not be...

From a traditional perspective, a mutual reception (which requires that the planets also aspect each other) generally mitigates problems. But: With squares and oppositions, there will only be reconciliation between the things signified by the planets with "hardship and error" (Masha'allah).

Morinus adds that reception won't mitigate problems if the planets are in detriment in the signs where they are. E.g., if the Moon is in Capricorn and Saturn in Cancer, and they oppose each other by aspect, then they are in mutual reception; but since each of them is also in detriment in those signs, they are too debilitated for mutual reception to overcome their problems. So it seems your planets are too debilated for mutual reception to overcome their problems. However you have not mentioned whether it is a day or a night chart (triplicity reception possible)

A better situation would be, e.g., Moon in Libra trining Saturn in Taurus (mutual reception by exaltation). Neither is debilitated by itself in those signs. :smile:

[Rebel Uranian]

It is a day chart. That is a good situation for Saturn and Venus, but not Mars. There's no triplicity reception on said chart :/ I picked this situation simply because I knew this wasn't the best possible scenario and I wanted to know whether it had any good at all. I know what the good scenarios are.

Would other aspects affect the reception?

[dr. farr]

I think that reception (including mutual reception) and the issue of dignity, are two quite seperate matters: mutual reception (any kind of reception really) I submit only shows a specific relationship existing between A and B: whether that relationship will indicate a fortunate or unfortunate net influence, depends upon other circumstances (such as the dignities involved)

(Note: pre-13th century astrologers considered mutual reception to exist whether or not the planets involved were in aspect to each other; see, for example, Al-Kindi, Abu Mashar, Al-Biruni, Ibn Ezra)

[JUPITERASC]

I have a similar case too. I read mutual reception Planet rulerships doesn't have to be Domicile(Dignify) it can be Exalted too.

Here is my free 63% Astrodienst chart by the way. :ninja: I think I am Nocturnal because my Sun sign is below AC/DC line. Anyways my Mercury is Sagittarius and Jupiter in Virgo. They are mutual reception but in detriment so I gain no benefits. At the same time I don't loose either. Its basically little effect in my life.

One of my better mutual reception is Saturn and Uranus with both Ancient and Modern collide. As both planet rulership is Aquarius. Another crazy reception I have Uranus and Mars; Mars exalted Capricorn and if we agree Uranus is Exalted in Scorpio. :devil: And for Mutual reception joke for Pluto and Mars in Scorpio. :rightful: I also read Neptune is exalted in Cancer and fall in Capricorn. So even I force a Mutual Reception on Neptune and Moon. Moon is Detriment and Neptune is exalted. But I don't think mutual reception works like that because Capricorn rulership isn't Moon. Similar goes for Venus and Mars. :wink:

There is little agreement regarding so-called Exaltation of Neptune and/or any other outer planets - only traditional astrology has a coherent system dating back around two thousand years, possibly longer

It is nonsensical and not possible to crowbar the newly discovered outer planets into an ancient system of dignities.

I think that reception (including mutual reception) and the issue of dignity, are two quite seperate matters: mutual reception (any kind of reception really) I submit only shows a specific relationship existing between A and B: whether that relationship will indicate a fortunate or unfortunate net influence, depends upon other circumstances (such as the dignities involved)

(Note: pre-13th century astrologers considered mutual reception to exist whether or not the planets involved were in aspect to each other; see, for example, Al-Kindi, Abu Mashar, Al-Biruni, Ibn Ezra)
Exactly so

[Rebel Uranian]

Since the outer planets are considered higher octaves of the inner planets, we could just give them the same dignities as the inner planets which they are the higher octaves of. The biggest problem with this is obviously Uranus as the higher octave of Mercury ruling Aquarius, as it would be domiciled in Gemini and Virgo rather than Aquarius and exalted in Virgo rather than Scorpio. Uranus should be considered the higher octave of Saturn more so than Mercury if this is to be very effective. Pluto is the higher octave of Mars and Mars traditionally rules Scorpio, and Neptune is considered the higher octave of Jupiter and Jupiter traditionally rules Pisces. This would put Pluto as ruler of both Scorpio and Aries, Neptune to Pisces and Sagittarius, and Uranus to Aquarius and Capricorn. I think this is a good system _if_ you want to dignify the outer planets. I know most traditionalists would be quite mad at this, but modern astrology was (loosely) built upon traditional astrology. It's best to be aware of all systems to be able to use all systems.

Edit: On aforementioned example Mars is elevated. Does this make a difference?

[JUPITERASC]

Since the outer planets are considered higher octaves of the inner planets, we could just give them the same dignities as the inner planets which they are the higher octaves of. The biggest problem with this is obviously Uranus as the higher octave of Mercury ruling Aquarius, as it would be domiciled in Gemini and Virgo rather than Aquarius and exalted in Virgo rather than Scorpio. Uranus should be considered the higher octave of Saturn more so than Mercury if this is to be very effective. Pluto is the higher octave of Mars and Mars traditionally rules Scorpio, and Neptune is considered the higher octave of Jupiter and Jupiter traditionally rules Pisces. This would put Pluto as ruler of both Scorpio and Aries, Neptune to Pisces and Sagittarius, and Uranus to Aquarius and Capricorn. I think this is a good system _if_ you want to dignify the outer planets. I know most traditionalists would be quite mad at this, but modern astrology was (loosely) built upon traditional astrology. It's best to be aware of all systems to be able to use all systems.

Modern astrology is not loosely based upon traditional astrology but instead is entirely dependent upon it - dignities being a good example.

Every modern astrologer has their own ideas regarding the particular so-called 'dignities of the outer planets', disagreeing amongst themselves and their differing schools of thought.

However when one views the traditional system, it is obviously, simply impossible to incorporate these ideas of 'dignified outers' into traditional astrological dignity tables such as these http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig2.html

These efforts to cram the outers into a two thousand year old system that works fine are very funny :smile:

[Rebel Uranian]

"Loosely based" is because some of modern astrologers' viewpoints are just dead wrong, and then other viewpoints get based upon these etc. It is also entirely dependent, but still entirely different in many ways.

[JUPITERASC]

"Loosely based" is because some of modern astrologers' viewpoints are just dead wrong, and then other viewpoints get based upon these etc. It is also entirely dependent, but still entirely different in many ways.
Modern astrology is firmly based on traditional astrology and cannot function without many of the ancient traditional techniques such as solar return, planetary dignity and many others. Whereas Traditional astrology is entirely independent of modern astrology :smile:

[Gogo91]

Saturn in Aries, Venus in Capricorn, Mars in Libra. Two of the planets are debilitated. However, if you switch them between the signs trying to give them the same dignity or debility (there is mutual reception by debility, although it is not commonly mentioned, from what I understand) the only time they will all have the same dignity is when they are all in domicile. Two planets in opposition will not be in reception because they already have the same dignity and take the path of least resistance (astrology is all about paths of least resistance) and not receive anything. Of course, to be logical there will be some sort of reception, but it is not quite as strong. But 3 planets in mutual reception with two squares and one opposition is tricky. There is no mutual opposition. Or is this a legit idea at all? It might not be...

Mutual reception isn't based on Domicile; Exaltation count as well.

In my opinion the best aspects of the 3 planets.

Mars and Venus: Mars exalted in Capricorn and Venus domicile in Libra. This is a best reception.

Saturn and Mars. Saturn exalted in Libra and Mars domicile in Aries. This is the weaker but better reception.

Mars in Aries, Venus in Libra, and Saturn in Capricorn is the weakest of the 3 reception. There is too much debility.

[juicey J.]

First of mutual reception is only one kind of reception in which, both planets are in each others sign such as sun in aries/mars in leo. There is also one way reception such as sun in gemini mercury in gemini or sun in Pisces with jupiter in Sagittarius or mercury in cancer moon in cancer. Also, farr is right the older astrologers thought mutual reception existed with out major aspect (trine, sextile, square, or opposition) but as i understand it they agree with their later medieval counterparts that any lack of aspects or antision between them weakens the affairs between the two planets as far as i understand it a mutual reception with aspect between two debilitated planets (although not totally favorable) is better then what post 13th century astrologers call a generosity (two planets in each others sign but with not major aspect or even antision between them).

[juicey J.]

Also, the worst connection between two planets other then inconjunct (lack of major aspect and antision) is mutual debility or planets in each other sign of determint or fall (even if its a trine or sextile) such as moon in scorpio and venus in capricorn (this is worse then an oppostion or square not all oppostion or squares are totally bad nor are all trines or sextiles totally favorable for example its generally better to have a square to a benefic then a trine to a malefic and its even better to have a square or oppostion to a dignified planet even if its a malefic then to have a favorable aspect to a debilitated planet. ) As i understand it is relatively bad for the affairs of a planet and whatever sign/ house or houses it rules if it squares, opposes, or quincuxes its lord but is in easy aspect to the planets its in determint and fall in. Seeing all trines as good and all squares or opposition (although yes they still retain difficulty and conflict) as totally bad is an over simplification modern astrology has made that errors. Well okay if a sign/house is in square to its main lords and they are in primary dignity (domiclie or exaltation or even in major mutual reception then its not so bad) and its not near as bad if a sign/house makes a favorable aspect to a planet its debilitated in if said planet is in major dignity or is involved in a major mutual reception or is being recieved by a dignified planet but if such things not the case it can spell major disaster for the affairs of said sign/house especially if any squares to malefics and/or wicked stars alignments are involved.

[tsmall]

First of mutual reception is only one kind of reception in which, both planets are in each others sign such as sun in aries/mars in leo.

Just to clarify, mutual reception can happen by domicile as you show here, but also by exaltation (Mercury in Aries, Sun in Virgo for example) and then there are the lesser dignities--term and face. Basically I believe that mutual reception happens whenever two planets are in the dignities of each other.

There is also one way reception such as sun in gemini mercury in gemini or sun in Pisces with jupiter in Sagittarius or mercury in cancer moon in cancer.

Er, what you are outlining here suggests that in order for there to be one way reception the receiving planet has to be in it's own domiclie. For example you give Sun in Gemini but that Mercury also needs to be in Gemini, or Sun in Pisces but with Jupiter in his own home of Sagittarius. One way reception simply means that planet A is in one of the dignities of planet B, and so is "received by" planet B. A planet in the domicile, exaltation, triplicity, term or face of another planet is said to be recieved by that planet.

Also, farr is right the older astrologers thought mutual reception existed with out major aspect (trine, sextile, square, or opposition) but as i understand it they agree with their later medieval counterparts that any lack of aspects or antision between them weakens the affairs between the two planets as far as i understand it a mutual reception with aspect between two debilitated planets (although not totally favorable) is better then what post 13th century astrologers call a generosity (two planets in each others sign but with not major aspect or even antision between them).

I am not certain when antiscia became a consideration, but in order to really understand what the ancient Hellenist astrologers dr. farr referred to were doing it needs be said that aspects were then not just made by orb but by sign, called regard or witnessing. Another consideration is that reception...colors, for lack of a better word, the energy of a planet regardless of aspect. Mutual reception of planets in aversion (next door signs or signs that do not traditionally "see" each other because of the lack of Ptolemaic aspect) is still mutual reception, called as you have pointed out generosity, still has an effect, especially in natal charts. There are other considerations that could bring these planets together even without a traditional aspect, such as sings that hear each other, and signs that command and obey. Toss in parallels in latitude and declination (so not just antiscia) and there are many ways that reception can help in dileneating a chart.

Mutual reception by detriment still seems viable to me, since usually you would find that the planets involved (for example, Jupiter in Gemini and Mercury in Sagittarius) are both weakened for being in negative dignity (not taking into consideration term or face) yet they are like warring kings occupying each other's castles. Debility of dignity (such as detriment, peregrination, or fall) has nothing to do with whether or not a planet can act, but how it will act. I see this type of mutual reception in natal charts (different, way different from horary in this case) as being more like checks and balances. One is not going to slaughter the residents of the other's castle, for fear the other will slaughter the residents of his castle in return...

[juicey J.]

Tsmall hello, first off i realize there is reception by the other 5 dignities but domicile is the main one due to being the home sign or planet in its house. Also, this is somewhat relative yes a generosity is a mutual reception and a mutual reception even a generosity is generally more favorable then an ordinary aspect but isn't as favorable for the houses/signs/affairs the planets lord over as a mutual reception with major aspect. Antiscia is factored in because its the one thing even with out major aspect which, keeps two planets from being inconjunct (not all semisextiles and quincuxes are inconjunct like many modern sources erroneously teach) which, is the worst connection two planets can have with each other. Yes a mutual reception between deblitated planets is bad (not as favorable is probably better wording) but a generosity with no antiscia is comparatively worse or at least arguably weaker for the affairs of said signs, planets, and houses involved in the primary rulerships.

[juicey J.]

Lets get one thing straight, when looking at receptions/dispostorships its generally not so good for the affairs of a house the more dispostorships it has (like four or more planetary dispostiors, and we are mainly looking at domicile since its a planets home or the buck stops here if you will) especially if there is no final dispositor or at least mutual reception by domicile such is less favorable its for the affairs of said house even if the aspects are mainly trines (and even less so if malefics and debilitated planets are involved) so the idea of all grand trines being so wonderful in modern astrology is a load of monkey waste.

[juicey J.]

Since tsmall brings up the other essential dignities i think it would be good to mention briefly what they basically are.

First there is domicile or planet in its home sign or house and this is the main planet a signs/houses energy if you will is concentrated towards.

Second there is exaltation which, is said to exalt or give aid to the affairs of a sign/house.

Thirdly there is triplicity which, changes if the sun is above or below the horizon at birth and is said to connect various planets and houses through an elemental relationship.

Fourthly there is term, a planet in is own term is only said to be a mimic and reception by term alone is quite weak but not as much as....

Lastly there is face, face is said to be a planet in desperation or at the last breath (face alone is the only thing keeping a planet from being peregrine or void the essential dignities which, is said to be nearly as bad as determint or fall) and planets which, a reception of any kind by face alone are said to be involved in a relationship filled with much stress and desperation.

These last dignities are based on degrees and one needs the table of essential dignites to figure and factor them.

Also, there is the almuten ruler which, is the planet which, has a combination of the dignities other then domicile over a sign/houses to the degree it trumps the sign or domicile lord as a sign/houses main dispositor/ambassador.

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

First of mutual reception is only one kind of reception in which, both planets are in each others sign such as sun in aries/mars in leo.

It would be better to say that mutual reception is a special type of reception with astrological reception being defined as "a planet that aspects one of its rulers". Any planet can receive another without being received in turn, and that is typically the way of it since mutual receptions aren't as common.

Also, farr is right the older astrologers thought mutual reception existed with out major aspect (trine, sextile, square, or opposition) but as i understand it they agree with their later medieval counterparts that any lack of aspects or antision between them weakens the affairs between the two planets as far as i understand it a mutual reception with aspect between two debilitated planets (although not totally favorable) is better then what post 13th century astrologers call a generosity (two planets in each others sign but with not major aspect or even antision between them).

This is true, but Tsmall points out the reasoning behind this, since orbs of influence weren't really developed until later, but the idea of planets needing to see one another was always present. My understanding of generosity is different than yours. Generosities aren't in any way a bad thing, they're just less independent than mutual receptions. I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the use of antiscia when considering reception, as it's not something I've ever seen mentioned before.

Also, the worst connection between two planets other then inconjunct (lack of major aspect and antision) is mutual debility or planets in each other sign of determint or fall (even if its a trine or sextile) such as moon in scorpio and venus in capricorn

I think this idea of "negative reception" would better be served in a discussion on pushing than in a discussion on reception. Reception is defined as a planet being in the dignities of another, being in the debilities of another is not reception and they don't really operate the same way.

Er, what you are outlining here suggests that in order for there to be one way reception the receiving planet has to be in it's own domiclie. For example you give Sun in Gemini but that Mercury also needs to be in Gemini, or Sun in Pisces but with Jupiter in his own home of Sagittarius. One way reception simply means that planet A is in one of the dignities of planet B, and so is "received by" planet B. A planet in the domicile, exaltation, triplicity, term or face of another planet is said to be recieved by that planet.

A planet that is receiving another can be in any sign, just for clarification on this point. It's true that a planet can receive another planet in any of its dignities, but we start to drop off in efficiency very quickly about midway down the ladder. Reception is cool and all, and I would rather have it than not have it, but it doesn't do any good unless it's perfect reception (see what they did there?) and this occurs by being in either one of the greater dignities (domicile or exaltation) and at least two of the lesser dignities (triplicity, term, and face). The idea here is in lesser dignities planets don't have full claim over a sign like they do in major dignities. Saturn is always in domicile in Capricorn and exalted in Libra, but it isn't always triplicity lord of Gemini, for example as it has to share that with Mercury.

There are other considerations that could bring these planets together even without a traditional aspect, such as sings that hear each other, and signs that command and obey. Toss in parallels in latitude and declination (so not just antiscia) and there are many ways that reception can help in dileneating a chart.

While it's true there are other ways that planets can interact with one another, putting the signs that hear one another and signs that command and obey one another on the same level as signs that see each other is a little shaky. Mostly because signs that hear one another or have a command/obey relationship have it as a one-on-one relationship where one sign will command only one other sign that it may already have an aspectual relationship with. Firmicus writes that Cancer hears Aries, but they already Square, or that Libra hears Cancer, but they already Square as well.

Also, this is somewhat relative yes a generosity is a mutual reception and a mutual reception even a generosity is generally more favorable then an ordinary aspect but isn't as favorable for the houses/signs/affairs the planets lord over as a mutual reception with major aspect.

This is a good point to remember when working with receptions. They are all relative to one another in a hierarchy of special reception relationships. It becomes more of a "take what you can get" exercise.

Lets get one thing straight, when looking at receptions/dispostorships its generally not so good for the affairs of a house the more dispostorships it has

? A planet can only ever have one dispositor. I've never seen a traditional author hop through dispositors in the way that modern dispositor trees depict. "Look to this planet and its Lord" and that's as far as I've ever seen anyone go.

[juicey J.]

No, not true a sign/house has as as many dispositors as there are lords for each planet robert hand says ancient astrologers had a terms for this such as "pushing the dignity". Also, your planet can only have one dispositor argument doesn't work because okay a planet has one dispositor but that planet in turn has one dispositor ect, ect, ect.n unless you run into a planet in domicile or involved in mutual reception via a domicle lordship. Also, robert E. Zoller (said by many to be the modern expert on medieval astrology) also, has said likewise. In other words its better for the affairs of a house/sign (and the other houses/signs/planets involved) the less domicile dispostors it has as it brings its related affairs to their best fruition if you will. yes they often simply say look at this ruler and thats it because they aren't going to spell every thing out for you and expect you to play connect the dots.

[JUPITERASC]

Since tsmall brings up the other essential dignities i think it would be good to mention briefly what they basically are. ....These last dignities are based on degrees and one needs the table of essential dignites to figure and factor them.
Since juicey J has highlighted a need for a table of essential dignities to figure and factor them - then the following table of Essential Dignities is likely to be useful to anyone interested in doing so :smile:

source skyscript http://www.skyscript.co.uk/essential_dignities.html

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/im/dignities2.gif

[JUPITERASC]

No, not true a sign/house has as as many dispositors as there are lords for each planet....
That's a misleading comment.

Only in whole signs does a sign = a house.

A sign has only one domicile lord
HOWEVER SOME - not all - signs also have an Exalted lord
NEVERTHELESS each sign does have a 'Detriment lord'
BUT only seven of the signs have a 'Fall lord'

Frequently sign rulers are not located in the signs they have domicile rulership of - however that does NOT mean that each house has 'multiple domicile lords'
...robert hand says ancient astrologers had a terms for this such as "pushing the dignity".

Also, your planet can only have one dispositor argument doesn't work because okay a planet has one dispositor but that planet in turn has one dispositor ect, ect, ect.n unless you run into a planet in domicile or involved in mutual reception via a domicle lordship
A sign has only one domicile lord - the fact that a planet may be located in a sign other than the sign of its domicile lordship does NOT mean - as you have implied - that then each house must have 'multiple domicile lords'
Also, robert E. Zoller (said by many to be the modern expert on medieval astrology) also, has said likewise.
Could you provide the precise text of the quote you are claiming is from Robert E Zoller :smile:
In other words its better for the affairs of a house/sign (and the other houses/signs/planets involved) the less domicile dispostors it has...
You are making a misleading comment because you are implying that one house = one sign BUT that is only true for Whole Sign Houses. Not all astrologers use Whole Sign houses and in fact there are more than thirty different house systems, fourteen of which are available on astro.com Extended Chart Selection Page

Robert Zoller did NOT say that a SIGN has more than one DOMICILE lord. Clearly a sign on a house cusp can have only ONE domicile lord

THEREFORE

Each sign is considered to be the natural home aka 'domicile' of particular planets - as detailed in the Essential Dignities table previously posted.

AND SOME signs are also considered to be the Exalted homes of SOME of the planets and so on as previously stated

for example:

Aries and Scorpio are the two natural homes aka 'domiciles' of Mars
AND
Aries is the Exalted home of the Sun AND the 'domicile' of Mars
Capricorn is the Exalted home of Mars AND the 'domicile' of Saturn
No planet is Exalted in Scorpio


Taurus and Libra are the two natural homes aka 'domiciles' of Venus
AND
Taurus is the Exalted home of the Moon AND the 'domicile' of Venus
Pisces is the Exalted home of Venus AND the 'domicile' of Jupiter
Libra is the Exalted home of Saturn AND the 'domicile' of Venus

- viewing the table I posted clarifies the issue. :smile:
...as it brings its related affairs to their best fruition if you will. yes they often simply say look at this ruler and thats it because they aren't going to spell every thing out for you and expect you to play connect the dots.
The different sign 'rulers' ARE NOT ALL DOMICILE RULERS - some rulers are Exalted rulers, some rulers are Detriment rulers, some rulers are Fall rulers, however each sign has only ONE 'domicile ruler'

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

No, not true a sign/house has as as many dispositors as there are lords for each planet robert hand says ancient astrologers had a terms for this such as "pushing the dignity".

That's not what pushing dignity/power is. Pushing dignity is when a planet in some dignity is applying to another planet. Such as Moon in Taurus applying a Trine to Mars in Virgo, the idea is that the Moon is able to give some of her strength to Mars who will be able to benefit from it in managing the affairs of his house and whatever the Moon is pushing to it.

I still don't agree with the dispositor thing. I don't think it works out conceptually and I've never seen anyone mention anything similar, but that doesn't mean it's not out there.

[juicey J.]

No, pushing the dignity is when a planet in deblity has it debility somewhat helped by its lord in turn being in dignity, robert hand talks about this in a lecture on receptions and said ancient astologers called this pushing the dignity and the way i understand it is the dignity is pushed until if and when it runs into a dignified planet . In other words if the lord of a house is debliated its not a death sentence but its more of one if its lord is debliated and afflicted, and its lord in turn is also, and so on. your sample doesn't work as the planets involved don't have a major rulership relationship. Yes medieval reception/aspect involvement is part of it you got that right. A moon in taurus would help a mars in cancer lessen its debility, therefore ancient astrlogers believed looking at all the lords was important before making final judgement, nearly every other medieval and hellenstic scholar on these forums will agree with much if not most of what im saying. The sample you gave is a non recieving (due to no major rulership of domicile, exaltation, or triplicity being involved) trine and has nothing to do with it, and besides you just agreed with my point which, was a planet can help another planet out and the lord of a house isn't the end all end all like you said in your first post to me (more or less with the whole only one dispostior business), your contradicting yourself. Well okay your sample would work if it was a night time chart and the moon in Taurus was reviving mars in virgo by triplicity lordship but only then would it count as a pushing the dignity. Also, once again yes a sign/house has one dispostor (talking about sign or domicile lordship) but it in turn has a dispostor, and so on unless its in its home sign.

[juicey J.]

No jupiterasc, there is no such thing as an exalted home (the exaltation lord gives added aid and benefit to the affairs of a sign/house) and its opposite the fall planet takes away from such), there is only one home sign, the signs don't have a winter and summer home. For example a square from mars and trine from venus is especially unfavorable in general to a scorpio house and its affairs as its receiving the planet its in determint in (that which, challenges the influence of the domicile) and has difficulty receiving the aid of its domicile (house lord) ruler due to the stress aspect. Also, yes the concept of home or house sign comes from whole signs, that's what astrology orgininally consisted of and where the whole concept of domicile lordship was developed from in the first place.

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

No, pushing the dignity is when a planet in deblity has it debility somewhat helped by its lord in turn being in dignity, robert hand talks about this in a lecture on receptions and said ancient astologers called this pushing the dignity and the way i understand it is the dignity is pushed until if and when it runs into a dignified planet

Interesting, I had listened to Rob Hand's lecture on Reception, but I don't recall him having spoken about pushing, it was a quite a bit ago when I listened to it, so it might be time for another go at it. However, I'm going to have to quote Ben Dykes on this one.

""Pushing power" which is the same as "committing virtue." ("Virtue" in Latin also means "manliness, strength, power"). Here, a planet which is already in its own domicile or exaltation applies to some other planet. An example would be Mercury in Gemini applying to Mars. See ITA III.16." (http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=67168&highlight=#67168)

That link goes to the whole post and thread which is very informative about the different concepts of pushing if anyone is interested.

Anyway, I'm entertaining the idea that we're talking about different concepts. You keep referring to "pushing the dignity", and though it sounds very similar to "pushing power", it might not be. It wouldn't be the first time I've been duped by different astrologers calling different things similar names, or similar things different names. Here's looking at you, Bonatti. :/

The sample you gave is a non recieving (due to no major rulership of domicile, exaltation, or triplicity being involved) trine and has nothing to do with it, and besides you just agreed with my point which, was a planet can help another planet out and the lord of a house isn't the end all end all like you said in your first post to me (more or less with the whole only one dispostior business), your contradicting yourself.

Right, but pushing power doesn't need reception to make it work. Only particular types of pushing require particular reception set ups, like pushing nature or Bonatti's commiting disposition, but pushing power and management don't require it (well, you could argue pushing management does for all practical purposes), but that is a whole different conversation entirely.

I'm not contradicting myself, I'm talking about different techniques entirely. Saying a planet's condition is dependent on its dispositor, but that that first planet can be bonified by other accidental dignities isn't contradiction.

Also, I never said that a planet's dispositor was the "be all, end all" for that planet as you're trying to characterize it, only that my understanding is "the buck stops there" and you don't consider other dispositors for other planets in relation to the first. Meaning, Mercury's dispositor is irrelevant for Mars in Virgo. It's just not something that I have ever seen practiced or discussed. Like I said before, I can't say for certain that it's not out there (who can say they've read all of the tradition?), but the authors I have read and studied have not mentioned it.

If you use it and do well by it, then by all means keep going. I'm not here to debate you or anything and I feel I've already let this become more of a debate than I wanted, I just like talking about reception and pushing, but I guess the link above will say all that needs to be said on this subject for now. :)

[JUPITERASC]

No jupiterasc, there is no such thing as an exalted home
On the contrary juicey J THERE IS GOOD REASON WHY SOME PLANETS MAY SYMBOLICALLY HAVE AN EXALTED HOME


(a) Either one has a 'home of one's own' of some description OR one is 'homeless' :smile:


(b) HOW A PLANET MAY BE DESCRIBED AS SYMBOLICALLY 'HOMELESS

'…...A planet with no essential dignity is called Peregrine, a Latin word meaning 'alien' or 'foreigner' (pereger = beyond the borders, ager = land, i.e., 'beyond one's own land'). In old English, to 'peregrinate' means to wander far from home.... Property owners tend to view drifters with suspicion, and distrust their lack of stability' In symbolic terms, a peregrine planet describes a drifter - someone with no title or stake in his or her environment...' http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig3.html

Thus a Peregrine planet most closely symbolically represents 'a homeless person' or a 'person with no permanent home, a drifter'

Drifters may occasionally find temporary homes/shelter BUT they are certainly not 'exalted' and within those temporary home, drifters are not respected as such.

A Peregrine planet represents - as Deborah Houlding describes the 'peregrine' connotation - an 'alien' person 'a foreigner' who is 'beyond their own land' and is 'mostly regarded with suspicion'

IN CONTRAST:

An exalted planet, “....ln symbolic terms is comparable to being an honoured guest in someone else's home. There is not the same level of freedom or strength as when a planet is in its own sign but it shows a dignified position, often indicating a person of respect or rank...'


When such an exalted planet is also angularly located that planet is more dignified and may have more power to act than the domicile lord of its Exaltation.


For example Venus in Taurus, Saturn in Libra:

Saturn's exalted home is Libra BECAUSE Venus welcomes Saturn and exalts Saturn AS AN HONOURED GUEST in her home aka domicile of Libra.

Venus domicile remains Venus domicile HOWEVER Venus now has a Resident in her home – i.e. Saturn.... and Saturn in Libra IS NOT 'just any old vagabond drifter off the streets, Saturn in Libra IS NOT some homeless foreigner alien to the neighborhood ' BUT INSTEAD Saturn in Libra is a dignified and honored person in command of their own considerable resources, someone of great potential assistance to Venus. FURTHERMORE Venus is not located in Libra PERMANENTLY

When Saturn enters Libra, Venus is not necessarily 'at home' herself therefore Saturn has freedom of occupation of her home aka domicile while she is 'away' in some other sign.

Saturn in Libra is not some suspicious 'homeless wanderer' aka 'drifter'

INSTEAD Saturn in Libra is an honoured guest occupying the home of the property owner, in this case Venus, while she is away

– furthermore not only is Venus in Taurus away from her Libra home BUT ALSO – from the sign of Taurus - Venus is in 150º aspect with Libra and is not fully aware of exactly what the scene is back at her alternative home

- and therefore Saturn in Libra has freedom of occupation of Venus home WITHOUT Venus supervision– even though Venus is of course involved in affairs of the Libran house and is more than happy to have Saturn throwing his weight around because Saturn is somehow helpful to the affairs of that Libran house. That's why Saturn's exalted home is Libra
....(the exaltation lord gives added aid and benefit to the affairs of a sign/house) and its opposite the fall planet takes away from such), there is only one home sign, the signs don't have a winter and summer home. For example a square from mars and trine from venus is especially unfavorable in general to a scorpio house and its affairs as its receiving the planet its in determint in (that which, challenges the influence of the domicile) and has difficulty receiving the aid of its domicile (house lord) ruler due to the stress aspect. Also, yes the concept of home or house sign comes from whole signs, that's what astrology orgininally consisted of and where the whole concept of domicile lordship was developed from in the first place.

[juicey J.]

The exaltation house if you will is only a vacation home, a planet only has one true/main house and is the main focuses of a house/signs energies. The concept of their being more then one dispositor and the final dispositor (domicile or two planets in domicile reception is a throwback from ancient astrology, although now a bit bastardarized) Rob hand does talk about pushing the dignity in like the first half hour of his lecture on receptions.

[JUPITERASC]

The exaltation house if you will is only a vacation home....
'Only'.... That's a misleading statement, particularly when one considers the definition of Exaltation

"After its own sign, the next best place for a planet to be is in its sign of exaltation. In symbolic terms this is comparable to being an honoured guest in someone else's home. There is not the same level of freedom or strength as when a planet is in its own sign but it shows a dignified position, often indicating a person of respect or rank" http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig3.html


Having a 'vacation home' is indicative of neither dignity nor rank :smile:

[tsmall]

The exaltation rulers are much older than the domicile rulers. In the Thema Mundi, the Hellenistic diagram for understanding astrology, we can clearly see in antiquity that each planet, excluding the lights, has more than one "home" or domicile. Though I quite agree with you that each planet did have a "preferred" home, there still is a very strong case to be made for a planet being able to feel quite comfy in more than one place.

Ben Dykes, in his Introductions to Traditional Astrology, translates several Persian astrologers on the concepts of planetary relationships. There is an entire chapter dedicated to each of the methods of "pushing." As well, other written source material for explanations of these concepts and their us is widely available.

Kaiousei no Senshi has also linked to a thread elsewhere that will help in understanding, and shows that what is being defined here as "pushing the dignity" isn't how it's traditionally applied.

I have not listened to the Rob Hand lecture. While I do not doubt that he speaks of pushing, I'm not so sure I would put my faith in my understanding of pushing, or reception of any sort, in one 30 minute spot in one lecture by one astrologer. For one thing, I would want to try it out for myself. And see what other sources have to say, so that I could make sure that I thoroughly understand it.

[juicey J.]

No, if what senshui says is true then the matters of a house/sign are greatly defeated or at least severely challenged simply by having the main or domicile lord in fall or detriment and that's just nonesense, all the dispostors of the planets involved with the ruling planet of the house have to be considered. No the idea of many dispostors/final dispositor is an ancient idea and its just the opposite of what senshui is saying, it was way more complex then the modern take on it (although ancient astrologers didn't write out long dispositor trees because they knew who they were writing for weren't childern they had to spell everything out in full detail for) with exaltation dispositors and triplicity dispositors (although only the domicile counts as final dispositor because its said sign/houses main focus point).

[tsmall]

No, if what senshui says is true then the matters of a house/sign are greatly defeated simply by having the main or domicile lord in fall or detriment and that's just nonesense, all the dispostors of the planets involved with the ruling planet of the house have to be considered. No the idea of many dispostors/final dispositor is an ancient idea and its just the opposite of what senshui is saying, it was way more complex (although ancient astrologers didn't write out long dispositor trees because they knew who they were writing for weren't childern they had to spell everything out in full detail for) with exaltation dispositors and triplicity dispositors.

I'm terribly confused. I don't think that's what Kaiousei no Senshi was saying at all. And it seems as if you've gone from saying that reception can only happen if planets are in each other's domiciles, or in their own domiciles while receiving another planet in their domicile, to now agreeing that reception can happen in many ways.

And you'll have to refer me back to where anyone talked about the houses they rule...though the part I bolded is mostly correct. But yes, there are other dignities to be considered, as well as other rulers. For example, Venus in Virgo is in fall, but in a day chart from 8* to 17* Venus gets term and triplicity rulership. This means she is dignified and better able to see to the matters of her houses. Further, Mercury as exaltation ruler should be taken into consideration.

Could you provide a reference in the literature for the idea of a final dispositor? Personally I don't think it's way more complex that what is being explained here...and I think what's being explained here is perhaps complex enough.

[JUPITERASC]

No, if what senshui says is true then the matters of a house/sign are greatly defeated or at least severely challenged simply by having the main or domicile lord in fall or detriment and that's just nonesense,
On the contrary, IF that is what Kaiousei No Senshi said then he IS correct BECAUSE according to medieval astrologers

...'the matters of a house' ARE 'greatly defeated or at least severely challenged simply by having the main or domicile lord in fall or detriment'

That's why medieval astrologers examine the location and aspects of ALL the rulers of a house - to discover whether or not the matters of that particular house may be remedied or alleviated by the influence of the Exalted ruler - if there is one. Not all signs have exalted rulers:smile:

However what IS nonsense certainly within the context of the idea of medieval astrology is the idea that a 'sign' itself can somehow 'be defeated'

[dr. farr]

Personally (my opinion) I believe this issue has been run into the ground by Traditionalist dogmatists, in a manner similar to what we find in mainstream Vedic astrology, with the splitting of hairs relative to ramifications of definitions and variants of definitions of the descriptive terms used by the various authors. This is why I personally have adopted a simplified approach to consideration of these matters regarding dignity, exaltation, etc.

One thing I do believe: I believe the signs condition and modulate the expression of planets in them, not the other way around: in other words, I believe the signs "rule" (so to speak) the planets, and that while the planets do also reciprocally influence the signs, the strength is from above (sign) downward (planet in sign) Now, this is (historically) a minority view (although it dominated early Hellenist thought, eg Manilius, and also much of Islamic transitional era astrological thought, eg, v. Ibn Arabi's "Mystical Astrology", also the Harranian astrological works of Thabit ibn Qurra, and it also is still dominant in Jaimini Vedic astrology)

The planetocentric outlook, developing early on (Firmicus Maternus, Parasara) came to dominate astrological thought (Western and mainstream Vedic), so planets became the "lords" of pretty much everything astrological, the "power centers", and this perspective really accelerated during Western Medieval, Renaissance and Reformation times, and continued to do so in the development of Modernist astrological thought and practice.

My opinions here are, of course, highly controversial and I certainly do not want to try to pawn them off as "true", or to have any one "believe in them"; just thought I'd pass them on, from one who has been involved in thinking about, and studying about, and testing about these matters, for many years...

[juicey J.]

Yes jupiter asc a planet ruling a house in determint or fall can severely challenge (yes the ancients believed this but they also believed there were exceptions and you even pointed out one) the affairs of said house however, also having said planets sign lord dignified can help to elevate matters this is also an ancient idea yes so is the exaltation lord being strong. The domicile is the main house of sign and acts as the final dispositor in whatever chain of planets disposit into or the concept of domicile loses much of its meaning and purpose.

[JUPITERASC]

Yes jupiter asc a planet ruling a house in determint or fall can severely challenge (yes the ancients believed this but they also believed there were exceptions and you even pointed out one) the affairs of said house however, also having said planets sign lord dignified can help to elevate matters this is also an ancient idea yes so is the exaltation lord being strong. The domicile is the main house of sign and acts as the final dispositor in whatever chain of planets disposit into or the concept of domicile loses much of its meaning and purpose.
According to medieval astrological practice planets may be in a state or condition known as 'Mutual Reception.

As time passed, centuries later, the modern idea of 'a final dispositor' emerged. Clearly though, when any of the planets in a natal chart are in Mutual Reception THEN there can be no modern 'final dispositor'

The fact there is not always a (modern) 'final dispositor' in a natal chart DOES NOT however mean that allegedly 'the concept of domicile loses much of its meaning and purpose'

Medieval practice connected to 'domiciles' works well and has done for approximately fourteen hundred years and continues to do so - despite there being no (modern) 'final dispositor' in many natal charts :smile:

[juicey J.]

I was talking about final dispositor as a general concept of course not all charts have one that's beside the main point. so the medieval astrologers agree with me there is a planetary chain with the domicile planet as final dispositor also i was talking about final dispositor in a more general way with a domicile planet as final dispositor of a small chain of 3 or so planets , i think in order for a planet to truly be a final dispositor it must have all the other planets disposit into it via domicile lordship. Also, with more then one domicile planet there can't be a final dispositor in the truest definition of said term.

[juicey J.]

I only know most things about hellenestic via reading bits of valens, dorotheus, and ptolemy and the rest of such along with medieval astrology is mostly second hand knowledge. While we're on the subject of lordships and receptions did ancient astrologers think it meant something or anything in particular if a planet was in domicile with none of the other planets disposting via domicile into it? For example mars in aries with none of the other planets in aries or scorpio, also would it mean anything further if no planets are in capricorn?

[Olivia]

I've never seen ancient or medieval astrology using dispositor trees, juicey. The Greeks had a system of ranking planetary power sort of along the lines of a captain, the first mate, and so forth in terms of which planets were most useful in managing the chart, going by the metaphor of a ship. The medievalists used almutens to determine planetary strength. Of course, one of those planets might be a final dispositor in a chart, but it isn't necessarily the case.

You can read delineations from Hellenistic times. In general, it would be a favourable sign for nothing to conjunct Mars in Aries - there are a few exceptions to that, but Mars is a malefic so you don't want him close to much. Ditto a generally good thing to have nothing in Capricorn when Mars is in Aries, because the signs are square to each other. It would also make a great deal of difference if you were looking at a day chart or a night chart.

Aries and Scorpio are disjunct, so any planets in those two signs wouldn't aspect each other anyway, at least not in the traditional sense of the word, to see or to view.

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

No, if what senshui says is true then the matters of a house/sign are greatly defeated or at least severely challenged simply by having the main or domicile lord in fall or detriment and that's just nonesense, all the dispostors of the planets involved with the ruling planet of the house have to be considered. No the idea of many dispostors/final dispositor is an ancient idea and its just the opposite of what senshui is saying, it was way more complex then the modern take on it (although ancient astrologers didn't write out long dispositor trees because they knew who they were writing for weren't childern they had to spell everything out in full detail for) with exaltation dispositors and triplicity dispositors (although only the domicile counts as final dispositor because its said sign/houses main focus point).

Hm...

"Note also what planet is located in the house or the terms of which particular planet and, if your planet is located in the house of another, look at the ruler of that house to see which houses of the chart it is in…for if the ruler of the sign is well located, that planet about which we are inquiring also shares in a part of the good fortune of the host’s joy. But if the ruler of the sign is dejected in any way, that planet about which we are inquiring, even though placed in a fortunate house, will be hindered by the dejection of that other planet which is the ruler of the sign. This also you can easily observe from human behavior. If you enter anyone’s home by invitation and the master of the house has just been blessed with an increase in good fortune, you too become a participant in his good fortune, for you share in the happiness of the good fortune of your host. But if the host is suffering from miserable poverty and is embroiled in the wretched accidents of misfortune, you make yourself also a partner in his grief and trouble, and the adversity in which you share overwhelms you to." -Firmicus Maternus

As you can see, the idea of a planet's dispositor having a direct effect on it and severely harming it if ill placed is not "nonsense", it's pretty established tradition (of course that doesn't mean there aren't other ways to bonify a planet that suffers from counteraction). You'll also note in this quote that no reference is given to a third planet, just the first planet that we're inquiring about and it's domicile lord. So, if the idea of dispositor trees is ancient like you claim, Maternus (who wrote in the 4th century) should have known about them and told us to consider them in turn. Your whole argument rests on the idea of "Well, they didn't tell us NOT to" and that's pretty nonsensical. If we're going to form astrological techniques based off of what the ancients didn't explicity tell us, then we're going to be here for a long time coming up with whatever we want.

[juicey J.]

I never used an ancient didn't tell us not to argument ever, i used an ancient astrologers implied such argument, big difference! You in your original post to me said the ancient astrologers said look to a sign/houses lord and that's it which, says or implies if a house/sign's lord is determint, fall or pergrine (which, happens well over half the time) then the matters of a house are almost totally defeated without the slightest possible exception which, is TOTAL NONSENSE! rather or not you meant as much isn't the point in my mind and understanding being whatever that's worth, that's what you said implied and i know you don't want to imply as much because you don't think this way about said subject. Also, i already more or less admitted a houses lord being in a sign of debility can severely challenge the affairs of a house but that what i meant to say was there being no exception to such is what was nonsense, read my all my posts carefully before responding, THANK YOU VERY MUCH! I have nothing personally against, respect you as a fellow human being, and want to be as peacefully as possible but you but your starting to get on my nerves.

Olivia the ancients had the concept of final dispostiors which, means they believed in long dispositor chains they just didn't feel the need to explicitly write them out.

Also, a house can have at least two dispostiors an domicile as well as an exaltation , and in turn said one or two planet's planetary lords being dignified (although if said dignified planets are afflicted by malefics or in the evil houses of the 6th, 8th, or 12th or worse a combination of such they can't do much to aid) and/or said planets being in friendly aspect to the benefics can help to counter things if they are in a sign of deblity although difficulties will still to a somewhat lesser degree arise due to the deblity.

[wintersprite1]

Remember all,

It is okay to disagree but personal attacks will not be tolerated.

TK

[juicey J.]

Remember all,

It is okay to disagree but personal attacks will not be tolerated.

TK

Yes but we should be free to be honest to another poster about how a poster makes us feel, so long as we don't use cuss words, slander, threats, or name calling and i never used any of such in my post even before you edited it, all you did was tone it down a bit. Okay maybe i went a bit overboard but that was an honest expression of how i felt.

[wintersprite1]

Just don't make it personal. Debates can get heated and that is expected, but it does no one good to point fingers, yell, or personally goad. It only causes everyone to dig into their own opinions deeper and more firmly... and its not allowed by forum rules.

I can see the dilemma here on this thread. Most of the Traditional Forum uses direct links to verify information. You mention we have to extrapolate out sometime what is not said, and this is true.... but unless there is a direct link, it is still conjecture and can not be seen as an absolute truth. At this point, if the same back and forth keeps up with the same arguments, I will probably close the thread as there is no impasse and all that needs to be said has been. At some point we have to agree to disagree, because no minds are going to be changed.

[juicey J.]

Just don't make it personal. Debates can get heated and that is expected, but it does no one good to point fingers, yell, or personally goad. It only causes everyone to dig into their own opinions deeper and more firmly... and its not allowed by forum rules.

I can see the dilemma here on this thread. Most of the Traditional Forum uses direct links to verify information. You mention we have to extrapolate out sometime what is not said, and this is true.... but unless there is a direct link, it is still conjecture and can not be seen as an absolute truth. At this point, if the same back and forth keeps up with the same arguments, I will probably close the thread as there is no impasse and all that needs to be said has been. At some point we have to agree to disagree, because no minds are going to be changed.


Problem is i took senshi's last post towards me personally and i found its tone to be judgmental and accusing and it hurt my feelings rather or not it was meant this way isn't the point, the point is this is how it made me feel, let me make it clear im not trying to out him or accuse him. And i feel like almost everyone including you is picking on me although i do agree my post went a bit overboard before you edited it.

[JUPITERASC]

Saturn in Aries, Venus in Capricorn, Mars in Libra. Two of the planets are debilitated. However, if you switch them between the signs trying to give them the same dignity or debility (there is mutual reception by debility, although it is not commonly mentioned, from what I understand)
Of the three planets chosen by the OP, Mars in Libra is debilitated by being in detriment, while Saturn is debilitated by being in Fall in Aries and
Venus in Capricorn has only dignity by Triplicity and Face but would otherwise be Peregrine in a day chart if located beyond the first 6º of Capricorn

Mutual Reception - whether the planets concerned are in exaltation, domicile or detriment - remains Mutual Reception: meaning two planets in mutual reception are friendly towards each other.

HOWEVER

Focusing on two of the three particular examples chosen by the OP then:

Saturn in Aries is Peregrine unless located in the last 10º of Aries

Mars in Libra is also Peregrine unless located in the last 10º of Libra
And if or when both planets are in a Peregrine degree, then Mutual reception between those two planets is unlikely to be of much assistance to either :smile:

[juicey J.]

Just don't make it personal. Debates can get heated and that is expected, but it does no one good to point fingers, yell, or personally goad. It only causes everyone to dig into their own opinions deeper and more firmly... and its not allowed by forum rules.

I can see the dilemma here on this thread. Most of the Traditional Forum uses direct links to verify information. You mention we have to extrapolate out sometime what is not said, and this is true.... but unless there is a direct link, it is still conjecture and can not be seen as an absolute truth. At this point, if the same back and forth keeps up with the same arguments, I will probably close the thread as there is no impasse and all that needs to be said has been. At some point we have to agree to disagree, because no minds are going to be changed.


What do you mean your going to probably close the thread, just because things got a little heated (granted you can close a thread without cause or warning as you have said right but that's hardly the point) after in the same breath saying your open to debate here....... Doesn't senshi have the right to at least respond to what i last said?

[juicey J.]

Let me say this plainly Yes a plantary lord in debility can (key word) severely challenge the affairs of a house but all the planetary lords involved as well the planetary aspects to said planet must be looked at before making final judgement. I thought i made this clear from the get go when i brought this up but apparently some took what i said the wrong way, oh well......

[juicey J.]

Jupiterasc, according to many authorities mutual reception by domicile or exaltation cancels out peregrine.

[juicey J.]

Also,to let everyone who reads said thread know, a mixed reception which, is planet A being in planet b's sign of domicile and planet b being being in planet A's sign of exaltation isn't a mutual reception.

[JUPITERASC]

...Two planets in opposition will not be in reception because they already have the same dignity and take the path of least resistance (astrology is all about paths of least resistance) and not receive anything. Of course, to be logical there will be some sort of reception, but it is not quite as strong
As an example, although Gemini opposes Sagittarius, nevertheless if located at the relevant degrees, then Mercury and Jupiter could be in mutual reception by term and face therefore it is possible for planets in opposition to receive each other.
...There is no mutual opposition. Or is this a legit idea at all? It might not be...
On the contrary opposition is by definition mutual i.e. the two planets are opposing each other :smile:

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

And if or when both planets are in a Peregrine degree, then Mutual reception between those two planets is unlikely to be of much assistance to either

The hang-ups over this idea is mostly going to come down to what individuals believe occurs during mutual reception. A popular (albeit modern) idea is that planets in mutual reception "exchange signs". Of course this would imply that a planet can be freed from its debility through a mutual reception, but that isn't quite what's going on. I also feel like many people consider mutual receptions as a sort of "general feel" for planets at any given time. This also isn't how they're supposed to be used. Only within the context of their relationship does mutual reception bring about anything satisfactory.

For example, the current Mars/Saturn Square. Typically, this is considered a very difficult aspect and if your horary or nativity has this configuration, it's going to be difficult for them to bring the matter to perfection. However, with the mutual reception, it makes it easier for those two planets to overcome the Square and achieve perfection of the matter. Of course, it's still two malefics and they're still Square, but hey! It's better than nothing!!

Also,to let everyone who reads said thread know, a mixed reception which, is planet A being in planet b's sign of domicile and planet b being being in planet A's sign of exaltation isn't a mutual reception.

No, even that is mutual reception. Planet A and planet B are still receiving each other simultaneously (which is the definition of mutual reception), they just feel differently towards one another.

[juicey J.]

No, mixed reception is a two way reception not a mutual one you even said they don't feel the same way towards each other so in other words it isn't mutual.

[JUPITERASC]

Also,to let everyone who reads said thread know, a mixed reception which, is planet A being in planet b's sign of domicile and planet b being being in planet A's sign of exaltation isn't a mutual reception.
QUOTE:

“.....Mutual reception does not have to be by the same level of dignity. If one planet receives another by sign, and the second receives the first by exaltation, that too is mutual reception :smile:


Mutual reception only indicates that both planets are receiving each other at the same time, and we can see from the dignities involved the extent to which they are capable of offering benefit through reception.

To be received by sign or exaltation is much better than being received by term or face...” source: Deborah Houlding


FURTHERMORE

“....Where friendly aspects exist between the planets, mutual reception heightens the benefits that arise from active co-operation; it reveals a situation where there is an easy trade of status and the potential for each planet to acquire something positive from the other. Where unfriendly aspects are involved, being received helps to protect a planet against the damaging effect of the aspect so that it can still draw benefit from the aspect”.... source: Deborah Houlding

[juicey J.]

Well we agree a mixed reception is a two way reception rather or not we are willing to call it mutual is a matter of semantics. Im sure we agree a mixed reception isn't as mutual as one with the same dignity level.

[JUPITERASC]

The hang-ups over this idea is mostly going to come down to what individuals believe occurs during mutual reception. A popular (albeit modern) idea is that planets in mutual reception "exchange signs". Of course this would imply that a planet can be freed from its debility through a mutual reception, but that isn't quite what's going on
Just my opinion, "Exchanging Signs" is a concept that muddies the waters :smile:
I also feel like many people consider mutual receptions as a sort of "general feel" for planets at any given time. This also isn't how they're supposed to be used. Only within the context of their relationship does mutual reception bring about anything satisfactory.

For example, the current Mars/Saturn Square. Typically, this is considered a very difficult aspect and if your horary or nativity has this configuration, it's going to be difficult for them to bring the matter to perfection. However, with the mutual reception, it makes it easier for those two planets to overcome the Square and achieve perfection of the matter. Of course, it's still two malefics and they're still Square, but hey! It's better than nothing!!

No, even that is mutual reception. Planet A and planet B are still receiving each other simultaneously (which is the definition of mutual reception), they just feel differently towards one another.
Exactly